Reality vs Gameplay

[Ace42]

Ok, I feel compelled to make this thread due to some gross stupidity that I have seen voiced by many people in many shades regarding many topics.

-------------------------------------
Preamble:
A post to take an objective clinical look at the merits of realism vs "artistic license"; to challenge fundamental assumptions and misconceptions about realism and it's place within a (modified or otherwise) BF2 engine environment; to encourage *open-minded* debate on unresolved issues, and to force some closed minds to accept that there is room for debate on these issues.

------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
1. This post and it's contents are not meant to insult the stirling work the devs have done and do, if I didn't like the mod, I wouldn't care enough to post here.

2. I (unlike a lot of posters here) do not feel I "own" this mod, or that I have a right to tell the devs what to do. Like everyone, I have an opinion on what they should and shouldn't do for the benefit of the mod, but that doesn't mean I feel they should be compelled to do it on my (or anyone else's) say so. Now, if I were PAYING for it, then maybe that would be different, but, ya'know.

3. I'll be making reference to a lot of hypothetical examples, this post is meant to question basic philosophical assumptions, not be a picky game of tit-for-tat. So if you do pedantically find something that isn't 100% accurate, ask yourself if it effects the point made.

============

Introduction:

Please remember that our main pronciple aim is to promote teamwork, make the BF2 engine into a realistic yet fun tri-service battleground,

Does teamwork necessitate realism, or vice-versa?

Simple answer, no. A game can be totally abstract and divorced from reality, but still require an equal amount of teamplay/work as any "real-life" task. This should be self-evident. An example of this principle would be WoW, which is a fantasy game (by definition, unrealistic), and raids which require dozens of people co-operating to achieve a goal.

So, as you can have teamwork WITHOUT it being realistic, that raises the question:
Which takes precedence?

Clearly, common sense would say that depends on each individual case, as judged by its merits. However, contrary to the cited statement of purpose, which lists teamwork as the prime aim, and specifies that the game remain "fun" even though it is striving for realism; there are still vast number of players insisting that "reality" be the acid-test for what content is included and how content works.

So, as this idea of "reality first" doesn't come from any statement by the devs, we must tackle the CORE question: "Is realistic gameplay *fun* gameplay?"

=================================================

War, never been so much fun:

The nature of "truth" has been a philosophical quagmire for generations, but since ancient times there have been pretty reliable methods used to analysing and testing statements to determine their validity. Whether through formal logic, or empirical pragmatism, most people accept that some statements are true, some false, and by applying different tests to them, this can be determined and known.

One such example is "Socratic Method", which posits that if you can think of a hypothetical situation whereby a statement is "false", no matter how improbable that situation is in reality, then the statement is inaccurate, and must be discarded for a revised, more sophisticated and precise statement.

If we apply this methodology to the statement "realism is fun", we can think of numerous examples of where realism *isn't* fun.

In reality, you only have one life. For the game to be the epitome of "reality", you'd only get one bite at the cherry ever. Death would be permanent. Is that fun? I think most people would agree not.

We can take this further, and say "in reality, soldiers have to dig latrines, and sit down and take a ****, and they get ill, and fall over and break their legs by accident and never get near the front lines" - would that be "fun"? I think most people would agree not.

Clearly, the statement "realism is fun" is essentially wrong. Does this mean "realism ISN'T fun" ? No. Likewise, we can show that unrealistic elements CAN be fun. Tetris, a classic game, is totally abstract and devoid from "reality", and yet is considered to be one of the best and most popular games ever devised.

Clearly we see that "fun" and "realism" are totally divorced, "realistic" aspects are not "fun" because they are real, but because they add an intrinsically "fun" aspect to the gameplay. This is why there are some "realistic" aspects that are clearly NOT fun, despite being "real".

Positive and negative aspects can be purely cosmetic, adding to the ambiance and helping everyone enjoy their game of "make-believe war". That's fair enough, PR backwards *is* "RP" afterall, but that doesn't mean that should be the goal of the game.

In conclusion - "War is hell", not "war is all s***s 'n' giggles."

So, what criteria should be used to weigh up the merits of including a "realistic" feature into the game?

=================================================

How real is reality?:

Clearly, if something is modelled accurately on "reality" - that's good enough reason for a feature to be implemented, right?

Well, yes and no. BF is NOT reality. In reality you can look in a different direction you are shooting, you can have your big toe shot dozens of times and not die, you can smell, your field of vision isn't locked into a 19" (or 21, or whatever) monitor, etc etc.

You can place a gun into BF2 that is perfectly modelled, with exactly the same MoA, RoF, etc etc, and *STILL* have it FEEL totally unrealistic. The stats for these guns are based on *real world* values, and these real-world values are totally MEANINGLESS when placed into a virtual game-world that isn't intrinsically tied to these values.

To illustrate this point, let me give you a purely hypothetical example:

You model an assault rifle, it's a real brute, uses massive slugs, has really high rate of fire, but IRL you can't fire it without falling over because it's got insane recoil, and it has massive deviation. You model all of these values exactly, using real life measurements of the speed of the gun, the deviation, etc. You put it into the game, and you expect it to "feel" like a mediocre gun. it's hot insane recoil and massive deviation, you can't hit shit with it IRL. Ah, but in this game the fogging distance is 40ft. At that range the deviation isn't significant. The recoil is vertical, and the engine doesn't support "knocking you over", so it is easy for a PLAYER to control, as they can just pull the mouse downwards to compensate.

So, this hypothetical gun, despite being realistically modelled, is an uber-weapon in the game, whereas another hypothetical gun, which IRL is easier to use and more manageable, is absolutely useless. The guns are "realistic", but they won't *feel* it to the player.

I can give dozens, if not hundreds, of examples where the BF2 engine is incapable of duplicating a real world phenomenon which means that a gun, although modelled accurately, will not behave accurately.

Their IRL values are correct, they are balanced, but because the ENGINE isn't *reality* - this symmetry is meaningless. The result? The game's unplayable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Stranger than fiction:

This means that other, "unrealistic", means need to be used to make up for the engine's short-comings. Rose tinted specs may have made you over-look them before, but they are there for all to see.

Rally points are NOT more "realistic" than spawning on squad-leaders, for example. Objectively, popping into existence next to a man or next to a bag, it's both equally fictional. Saying "rally points represent a reinforced / supplied position" is all well and good, but make no mistake, that is not REALISTIC - that is SYMBOLIC.

Whenever you find yourself saying "yes, that represents <a realistic phenomenon>" you are actually saying "well, yes, that's not realistic, but we need it to help the game FEEL more real."

That is no different to changing a gun's ROF or damage away from a quasi-real value to a totally arbitrary one in order to "represent" another shortcoming or limitation of the weapon that the game engine can't realistically depict.

------------------------------------------------------

So, how can we maintain any semblance of reality then?

Well, there's a number of methods you can use. While the values used to represent a weapon's behaviours are arbitrary, you can still preserve the general ratio of them, and as such preserve the "feel", even though the "real" numbers are lost.

Another hypoethical example: IRL a real sniper-rifle's max effective range is say 1km, whereas an assault rifle's is half that. In the game, you can only see 500m because of fogging, which means that assault rifles are infact superior to sniper rifles, as they have a faster RoF, etc etc, and have the same effective range in the game (you can't snipe what you can't see). If you set the SR's max effective range to 500m, and the assault rifle's to 250m, you maintain the ratio, the guns will feel the same (IE the sniper rifle has twice the effectiveness at range as an assualt rifle), and the "feel" of reality is preserved better than if you had used the real world values.

Secondly, you can accept some factors as immutable (clip size, zoom length, etc), but then use the SUBJECTIVE factors to balance these out. The amount of elevation caused by recoil when firing a gun isn't a mathematical certitude. You can't say "every shot fired by an M16 will raise the gun by one inch" - or anything similar. What this means is you have a decent amount of leeway to adjust this numerical value in the game without it being "unrealistic."

Infact, one game example is the GL having something like 4x the force of recoil as the M16, but in the game they apparently raise the muzzle by roughly the same amount per shot.

Another obvious factor is "damage" - the BF2 system isn't capable of analysing wounds, weighing up damage to internal organs, the effects of shock, etc etc. It, completely unrealistically, models damage on a typical "HP vs DP" system. So, saying "up the damage of a 5.56 slug so it will kill in 3 shots instead of 4" has no bearing on "reality".

============================================

Opinions are like a**holes, everybody's got one:

A lot of posters here are military / ex-military, and are keen to offer their valuable insights into what is and isn't realistic. Great, good stuff, however opinions are, by definition, subjective. And, as any fule kno, games don't model subjectively, they use numbers. Translating subjective feeling into a numerical model is not scientific, and as such your experience is pretty worthless in these specific instances. At best you can say stuff like "The M16 doesn't feel 'right'" with a degree of certainty, but then the common sense reply would be "well duh, you're using a mouse to fire it..."

So, just as I am sure you're annoyed at non-military putting forward their speculation as fact, you can bet your bottom dollar that there's just as many players annoyed at people putting forward their subjective experiences as "fact".

Yes, I am positive a lot of posters have in depth knowledge of weapons and how they behave in real life. Many have had it as an integral part of their careers and working life.

I, personally, have an in depth knowledge of games. I'd wager I've spent more hours gaming in the last twenty years than most posters have working. I have been lucky enough to combine gaming and working in a career and do both. So, while you (ex-) military personnel expect a little deference for your experience in that field, perhaps a little deference to the gamers here and their experience in this field would also be in order? Some players might not know the composition and behaviour of tracer rounds, but that doesn't mean they don't have a better insight into what will make a fun game than you do. And vice versa, obviously.
=========================================

Conclusion:
So, to sum up, I have yet to see a statement that indicates this mod is supposed to be a SIMULATOR, not a game. Saying "you'd better do some research into real life before you suggest a gameplay change" could just as equally be met with charges of "you'd better come up with some pretty convincing arguments before you start introducing realistic aspects to the game."

Oh, and can the people saying "go back to vanilla if you love it so much" please please please grow up? You're just inviting retorts of "if you like reality so much, go play Operation Flashpoint / America's Army / Red Orchestra / etc etc etc" at the least and "go fight in Iraq" at the worst...

[Lampshade111]

I do think that many of the attempts to force teamplay or create a higher level of realism are harmful to the gameplay. For example all of the extra rules to get a kit added in 0.6 are a real pain the ***.

Some people say that "realism is gameplay" but that is simply not true and we can see areas where realism has been sacrificed for the sake of having a fun mod. If this was more realistic and you could only spawn in once and then you had to quit the game when you died the mod would totally suck.

[Ace42]

I don't understand your post, all of it is true.

Well, I'm glad you concur with my conclusion and analysis of the situation.

your post is a good read, and dose raise discussion, but we try to be realistic, and game play is along with realism.

I was mainly trying to, reasonably and concisely, engage with the vocal segment of the community that insist that realism is more important than balanced (and consequently 'fun') game play. I'm a little ticked off at the number of people dismissing other player's valid opinions and suggestions with "yes, but in REALITY..." when, as I think I demonstrated in the first post, there is waaaayyy more to consider than simply "how it is in reality."

I figured that a post like this that doesn't name-names and isn't antagonistic would be more productive than repeatedly jumping into the middle of threads and having to point out that "such and such" might be realistic, but getting repeatedly owned by that technological marvel *isn't fun* for the helpless people on the receiving end.

[Teek]

good essay.
I shall build on it be saying the M16 has too much recoil, It feels like it has more than the QBZ, which AFAIK uses a larger round and possibly less recoil springs.

[Wolfe]

A bit too clinical for me; Brian Greene's book on quantum physics was an easier read.

A lot of text just to say: realism based on real-world elements within the confines of overall gameplay fun. Meh, still too many words. Need a single picture:

Shoot'm up FPS <------PR------>Simulator


PR is somewhere between an FPS shooter and a simulator. Nobody is asking for one extreme or the other, but certain elements may fall closer to one than the other for the sake of realism or gameplay.

[ArmedDrunk&Angry]

I liked the post but I also did not understand the exact point you were trying to make.
The kit rules and the commander asset rules add complexity to the game.

Real life, in my limited experience, is complex.

The rules reward those who plan and work together, and again, IRL those qualities hold true as well.


Some weapons are marginally better than others but tactics and strategery are far more important than the the M16's recoil ( which seems more than in the RL videos ).

I run a 2-3yo system and I'm not the fastest guy for my age group let alone compared to a 14yo but I do pretty well in most games.

Why ? ............Well maybe I cheat or maybe I think, which in some cases is just like cheating because the other guy is not thinking.

12 guys who are all thinking have no problem beating 12 guys who are not thinking or planning.

My point is that because the M16 has more recoil than the G3 in no way prevents the team using the M16 from winning the round.

The realism aspect is that PR will richly reward you for thinking and harshly punish you for not planning and I love that, and I think many others do as well.

Realism, great concept, but as the OP mentioned we don't have the capability to model realism at this point but the PR Developers have done the next best thing by making a fun, easy to use, FPS into a tactical RTS game.

[Lampshade111]

Regardless the M16 should have less recoil and the G3 should have more.

[eggman]

There's a lot of words there.. but you actually said very little.

It's a GAME. Full stop. Theoretical and hypothetical pontifications are dull. If you have a specific aspect of game play you can frame within the context of "realism versus game play" then there's possibly a discussion stemming from that. But I haven't seen that in the post.

Think of PR like mil sim airsoft. We make "rules" to make things as realistic as possible, but still need to keep it fun (where our target audience has a definition of fun similar to our own).

About the most realistic thing PR can simulate is the dependency on your team mates to be successful. No... that doesn't require a realistic setting, but that's the choice we have made. And as the ones pouring the blood sweat and tears into the thing.. we get to make those choices.

[Lampshade111]

Yeah but with airsoft weapons you don't have to deal with a drunk quartermaster who likes to make you suffer.

[Eddie Baker]

Yeah but with airsoft weapons you don't have to deal with a drunk quartermaster who likes to make you suffer.

Never played airsoft with a college fraternity then, have you?

[ArmedDrunk&Angry]

Yeah but with airsoft weapons you don't have to deal with a drunk quartermaster who likes to make you suffer.

O Really ?

[Ace42]

If you have a specific aspect of game play you can frame within the context of "realism versus game play" then there's possibly a discussion stemming from that. But I haven't seen that in the post.

I have plenty, but:
1. That would muddy the waters by bringing in extraneous arguments that miss the core point I was trying to make.
and
2. They've all been covered ad nauseum elsewhere, generally meeting with a "well that's not realistic" answer which stops debate in the tracks. Hence an original thread with a different angle.

One of my main gripes would be tanks (especially tank-sniping), though. Great fun for the guy sitting in one in the middle of the desert mowing people down, suckage for everyone pinned down unable to get the one kit (H-AT) that could maybe take it out. For me, "teamwork" isn't relying on two random complete strangers who aren't in your squad, might not speak your language, and are quite possibly AFK or hiding in the middle of nowhere; to take out a near-indestructible vehicle.

Lethal C4 or SLAMs, unrealistic though they may be, would at least give regular grunts a slim chance to fight back. And lethal C4 wouldn't be any less realistic than the farce that is the C4 / Landmine combo!

[ArmedDrunk&Angry]

The tank issue is a key component of planning.
All sides have an equal number of tanks but often only one side does any planning concerning those tanks.
On Kashan, in a 4 hour battle, that lack of planning can quickly turn your game to shyt if you happen to be on the team who's tankers didn't plan.
That sucks but it is the reality aspect that says life ain't fair.
The next round maybe you are playing with Fuzzhead and WAC armor and you never see an enemy tank as an infantryman because careful planning has made sure the odds are 3:1 when that enemy tanks shows up, alone, unsupported by infantry.

I'd like to see SLAMs be more powerful as well but no single weapon is going to defeat a squad of tankers, only other tankers or an attack aircraft can do that.

Fail to plan; plan to fail.

[Ace42]

I appreciate what you are saying, but any game that goes "well, your teammates lost the only couple of assets that could make a difference, so now you're powerless and have to resign yourself to being massacred indefinitely" isn't fun. That's not just "your team losing because they're not very good" - that's your entire team of 30 or so players losing because of a handful of players. Nevermind that a griefer could take the tank / kit and charge straight into an ambush intentionally, under the guise of simply being a poor player.

[KP]

But that's real life. Just like in a real war, if the armour guys screw it up, that's not just bad for them, but for the guys they were going to support as well. Same goes for infantry and CAS aircraft. IRL you have to have a plan, and so it is in PR too. The plan might change underway, but the team - or players - with a plan will almost always have an advantage.

[CAS_117]

I think you're just going to have to publish this.

[Ace42]

But that's real life.

Did you read the first post at all? In "real life" there aren't 32 players on each team, etc etc.

I want to play a fun fair game, not get my ***-kicked through no fault of my own because "that's real life."

And I fail to see how (depending on the number of people on the server) 1 or 2 players lone-wolfing with the H-ATs corresponds to "the team not having a plan" when the other 30 players shouldn't be held accountable.

And really, no matter how you plan, in an armour vs armour conflict one side is going to win, one is going to lose. After that, the rest writes itself.

[VipersGhost]

From what I'm reading Ace, you have a real problem being dependant on a select few people that hold your "Fun" in the palm of their hands. They mess it up...it messes you up. I definitely hear what you are saying for sure...I've cursed our idoit tankers more than I'd like to say. If they get owned..then so do we. So the solution though is not to nerf the tanks, the solution is to try and find something within the bounds of reality that might help things out. In the end though you will always be relying on someone else in PR, thats the nature of the game...it has great consequences, some good and some bad. Thats a direct discision made by the devs to model that. I wouldn't be to up in arms though man...its 0.6, basically a living beta. The big. armor maps are new as well as a slough of things. It is jumbled a bit but rest assure GREATLY improves with each step, so just sit tight and things will move on. The only reason guys shoot down "non-realistic" ideas is because the "realism first" approach works and is working...we like to look deeper into solutions instead of just balancing thing, usually there is a fix that will help the game and is quasi-realistic. Eitherway its not as bad as you make it out to be, lots of new guys are struggling but I find it getting better every day. And who says the kit process is difficult? Its easy...the "good" kits aren't always available, thats fine...otherwise everyone would have one and it'd be ghey. Plus kind of makes for a nice surprise and change of pace when you do get a nice sniper/HAT kit.