Project Reality Forums

pvt.nouri wrote:What do you guys think of the Call of duty 4 engine?

Does COD4 have 64 players or maps big enough to support them? Does it have vehicles like we need?


I think if people would think, they could answer their own questions. ??:

Alex123 wrote:After playing Crysis (yeah yeah I know), this game engine feels like it is from the stone age. Even if it isn't reality, the graphics obviously are unsurpassed, the physics (not talkig about the actual mathematical implementation) is just like it should be. Mow down trees with a minigun, blow up buildings, use objects to your advantage, vehicles that can be disabled in so many ways etc. Also weapon customization, and offcourse these little things that engines from well before BF2 already supported like leaning left/right.

All in all, Crysis creates a much better immersion, even for a nonreality game, then PR could ever reach on the BF2 engine. Note immersion!=reality

but BF2 engine - 2004
Crysis - 2007

Computers have come miles in 3 years, and the fact that on PR we at least have destructible buildings is a great achievement in itself. Yes Crysis is a great engine, but so is BF2 for the time it came

Plus as said before about any of the next gen engines, how many can do 64 player servers with all manner of mechanical war machines?

pvt.nouri wrote:What do you guys think of the Call of duty 4 engine?

Love the look of the "CoD4 world", has some really nice features - like shooting through walls and the effect of 'nades, flash, smoke, etc.

I play it with some friends once a week, but only because they like the arcade style of play!

If we could get the look of the CoD4 engine, with the reality of PR.. I would never play any other game!!

BF2 was an amazing game when it came out, I have played (way to many) hours on vBF2 before I found out about PR. Back then I was playing America's Army for realism, but then I found PR.

Regards,
Steen

PrivateJson wrote:Love the look of the "CoD4 world", has some really nice features - like shooting through walls

if someone goes through all the materials and sets what can go through them then we could have realistic bullet penitration.

will ill give the BF2 engine its props. it did allot for its time. being able to support 64 players and you can drive or fly just about anything that you can see.

but it would be nice to see it on the Frostbite engine. but EA is only putting battle bad company on consul and not PC. so i dont think will be seeing that engine on PC anytime.

the same as Fox...
-----------------------------
...Im not a doctor, im a medic...

What is the difference?

The doctor cures people, the Medic just makes them more comfortable, while they die.
"Mental note: Don´t ever get shoot" lol

ironcomatose wrote:Does COD4 have 64 players or maps big enough to support them? Does it have vehicles like we need?


I think if people would think, they could answer their own questions. ??:

Hmm I didn't know that. Sorry, tough guy.

Defiyur wrote:Yeah they know skilled, devoted people would make the ultimate tactical FPS and make EAs next installment of kiddie shit wrapped in pretty bow look exactly like what it is.

so true its sad

i bet this is what they do more often than work


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDNSvN17jpk

I like the fact that PR is on battlefield for the simple reason that unlike soo many games that get released these days the focus is on the quality of the game mechanics and not flashy visuals

Guys the sad fact is theres not much money to be made from a teamwork based army game that is as unforgiving as PR, so not many studios are turning out games even remotely close to what we'd want. Therefore whatever you think of the battlefield engine, we should be pleased we have a base that we can modify to make a game as we see fit, as no games company seems to be able to do it right at present. I'm kinda hopeful about Far Cry 2 and Armed Assault 2, but seeing as every new game since Stalker has failed to live up to its hype, I'm not THAT hopeful

Thats how I see the BF engine. Its not perfect, but its better than nothing....

I find it great, Its got just about all I can want as a player, it supports 64 people (perfect), supports large Maps, decent visual aspect, not a very huge file or strain on your system, and little to no lag with the right set up (I run 50+ FPS on Average settings on PR).

I personally find it a good gaming engine...but I'm certain the people who mod it would hate it due to having most of it un-modifiable or just to hard to do it.

Either way to all you mods out there you are doing a bloody great job with PR its better than EA could have ever made it. Regardless of there unlimited time and money you guys at home doing it for free put them to shame, nothing they could have done to BF2 could ever match what you have turned PR into.

Excellent engine, shitty modding capabilities.

Deadfast wrote:The only reason why I even give a damn about BF2 engine is PR

dan striagt!

I like the PR mod. I hope BF3 has the same feel, now that I played PR I don't want to play BF2.

lets be realistic, and mature about this...

bf2 is the engine chosen by the PR developers for a reason, it offers multi vehicle support, team squad based VOIP... graphics are fairly nice.... there may be other engines that offer some features that are better, like better graphics or better physics and so on.. but when you add all the things that you need for a multi player combat game.. this engine would probably top the list.....

we should look at it in a balanced way.. rather than go into 733t moaning seesion when 1 or maybe some features are not that good as other engines...

also no matter how much peopell moan and complain.. lets look at facts...

bf2 is still probably one the most propular games out there... even after three or four years... so i guess.. the poepel have spoken !!!

It really annoys me when you get childish snide comments.. lets use our brains for once please



I think EA did a resaonably good job, and they are there to make money, just we all are.. nobody gives anything for free...

has OF2 (operation flashpoint 2) it's own engine or does it use an existing one?

guess non of us has played OF2 yet but i think modding would improve PR feeling

I bought BF2 for PR, but played DC extensively on what is pretty much the same engine (though a significantly better build). Unfortunately EA's dominance in marketing and so on means that the BF engine hs close to 100% share in the big full spectrum warfare FPS market. This largely dissuaded others from trying to put out competitors until Trauma released FFoW about 3 years too late to have any impact. The BF2 engine is substandard in many areas with some of the worst hitreg and netcode I can think of off hand.

Words can't describe how much I hate the hitreg.

I think its well rounded in its flaws. The netcode sucks fairly often but its equal for everyone, fairly essential for competitive play. The hl engine is worse for lag in my experience though its fine for some no doubt, much more irritating to me.

rough77 wrote:has OF2 (operation flashpoint 2) it's own engine or does it use an existing one?

guess non of us has played OF2 yet but i think modding would improve PR feeling

i was just about to say the coming armed assault 2 engine. OFP2 is using the neon engine, same as DiRT