Project Reality Forums

Hello there! I'll start out with explaining who i I am.
My name is Christian, 21 years old, and live in Sweden and I study Game Development at Stockholms University. I've played PR for a couple of years now. I played mostly vanilla BF2 before until my friend forced me into playing PR, at first I thought it was annoying and dull to play; you died from enemies that you never saw all the time. After a while I learned the teamplay and the game became really fun.

Now to why I'm here; I'm currently going a course that requires us to analyze an aspect of a game. I decided to find out why some people would prefer playing PR instead of vanilla BF2, or any other realistic game instead of a more unrealistic for that matter. Now I'm here doing some survey.
It's a loose subject but the best i could think of, any other ideas are welcome.

In short:

1. Why do you prefer playing PR instead of vanilla BF?
2. Do you prefer more realism in a game?
3. Can a game have to much realism? If so: at what point does a game have to much realism?(Like when vehicles needs petrol, avatars need to eat, go to the toilet or other stuff like when shot in a leg you can't use that limb etc.)
4. When does a realistic game become a simulation instead?
5. Would you consider PR a simulation?

Answer any questions you'd like, preferably with some explanation.
Thank you.

1. Why do you prefer playing PR instead of vanilla BF?

vBF2 is nothing more then an arcade shooter. The whole concept of BF2 has always been around "Rock-Paper-Scissor". A Tank killed you? You spawn with Anti-tank close to it! Killed by a sniper? You counter-snipe it. Also, the game comes with a squad-system, but MANY players prefer to be unassigned and do they're own thing, even though being in a squad has additional benefits like an extra spawnpoint and usually a medic prefers someone in his squad over someone who isn't.

PR makes excellent use of the squad system. Being unassigned is just a no-go and walking alone means losing firefights most of the time.

2. Do you prefer more realism in a game?

Yes and no. Being to realistic eventually makes a game to unplayable. But unrealistic makes a game to stupid.

3. Can a game have to much realism? If so: at what point does a game have to much realism?(Like when vehicles needs petrol, avatars need to eat, go to the toilet or other stuff like when shot in a leg you can't use that limb etc.)

Like in the previous question, to much realism makes the game unplayable. And my limit is around adding everyday needs like food/sleep/toilet. But stuff like patrols wouldn't be that bad if they aren't to long.

I remember a user-made mission in Operation Flashpoint where I was patrolling the outside perimeter of an US-outpost. This meant walking circles around the base and checking out the horizon. The first 4 circles were cool and I was really thrilled what would happen. Eventually after 20 rounds around the base, I stopped because just nothing happened. Probably the mission was bugged and it couldn't continue, or it was just really that boring.

The other side is Call of Duty, where everything is so rushed that you're always in action. Where patrolling that area actually means, get ambushed in that area.

4. When does a realistic game become a simulation instead?

When it becames like ArmA2 or VBS. But even that stays a game.

5. Would you consider PR a simulation?

No.

Ans. to 2 - Do i prefer more realisim in a game .


Yes i definitely do prefer more realism and why i prefer more realism is because generally speaking i can not tolerate fast paced games that are simply about point and shoot. If your shot is off or the person in control of the other avatar is quicker on the reflexes your straight out dead.
That style of gaming too me is a no brainer and anyone can play it with minimal thought processes behind it.


Generally speaking most realism shooters are slower paced , though i might not get my shot off quicker and might die i feel i have accomplished something with my squad and i was situational aware of my surroundings compared to fast FPSers.



-PS Best of luck in your studies

1. Why do you prefer playing PR instead of vanilla BF?
Far too many obvious reasons to list without boring you.

2. Do you prefer more realism in a game?
If the game is based on real warfare yes, otherwise some details (or lack of) can be annoying/distracting.

3. Can a game have to much realism? If so: at what point does a game have to much realism?
Definitely. I think the point of excess is when it becomes detrimental to game play, although that's a big gray area. Realism in today's games is just a relative comparison anyway.

4. When does a realistic game become a simulation instead?
I consider simulations and games to be different things. Although the Arma engine is used for training, I don't buy the label of Arma2 itself being a 'military sim'.

5. Would you consider PR a simulation?
Negative.

Why do you prefer playing PR instead of vanilla BF?
Teamwork.

In arcade FPS made for the mass consumer, the gameplay cannot be teamwork oriented because most people are not. The result is that all weapons are not as powerful as they should be.

For example, in PR the heavy AT is devastating to armor, but in order to use it well you'll need the support of your squad (lone wolfing will get you nowhere). In vBF2, they can't make a heavy AT as powerful as it should be because they can't inject the teamwork element. So they nerf down the AT role so a player can lone wolf it, get like 6 rockets, but not be as powerful.

When I played vanilla BF2, I would create a squad and invite a bunch of people into it. Then as squad leader I would hide and let squad members spawn on me. I wouldn't do much fighting... I would just lay around in hiding and watch my squad mates spawn on me and take the flag. I got fun out of changing the tide of the battle even though I didn't fire a single shot. I also knew that my efforts made the game more enjoyable for my squad mates.

That aspect of teamwork is what I love most about PR. Sure we could spent 15 minutes just standing around sometimes defending a flag or spent 10 minutes just driving to an objective. Last night I got up, went to the bathroom, got a smoke, got another beer and when I came back we were still driving to an objective on Kashan I actually enjoy this. It makes the reward of winning so much sweeter.

One thing I also noticed is that I appreciate the game engine more. Anyone else feel this way? In vanilla BF2 I would spend so much time racing for the next flag that I didn't have time to appreciate the little details in the game world. In PR, you learn this quickly when a wooden box that you otherwise would have never noticed saves your life when crouch behind it.

Do you prefer more realism in a game?
Yes.

Can a game have to much realism? If so: at what point does a game have to much realism?(Like when vehicles needs petrol, avatars need to eat, go to the toilet or other stuff like when shot in a leg you can't use that limb etc.)
This is a difficult question that I cannot answer. Everyone has a personal preference (as you can see by some of the other answers). All players have a different threshold for realism.

In fact, there are some players that don't like certain aspects of realism in PR, but they deal with it because the overall experience is awesome.

I think what matters most is the overall game experience.

When does a realistic game become a simulation instead?
When *NOTHING* is automated. Every single task from looking, to walking, to using your arms, etc is a manual action.

Would you consider PR a simulation?
No.

1. Why do you prefer playing PR instead of vanilla BF?

I have played more hours of vanilla than I can remember, I used to be very immersed in playing it, there is nothing wrong with it, unlike most people on this forum seem to think and have no real justification of such other than it does not suit their taste. Gameplay wise its a decent game. (vanilla)

@Playing PR, the core game itself only has so much shelf life. Free and arguarblely better mods offer the game thousands of hours more play time as they add a lot of variation (especially PR). The ASS3 game mode and INS I believe are the core of the mod, without the dynamicism of the game modes the Mod would have been forgotten about as these modes offer endless possibilities when playing.

As others have said, teamwork. Its rare to find in any other game where players are willing to co-operate to the extent that they do in PR.

2. Do you prefer more realism in a game?

Yes and no.

Yes in that realism can benefit a game when it is done to complement a game play feature and thus increases immersion without forcing the player to have to 'act' realistic. What I mean by this is, a representation of realism, while guns and aesthetics may be like for like of what is currently being used, gameplay wise, I am playing a game walking over 50kms of wooded forest and not seeing anyone is not my Idea of fun, If I want to walk in the woods and not see anything there are more than enough outside my house. (The example being Arma2), whats the point of having x amount of terrain when you only fight in a tiny proportion of it. Thus wasting resources that could be used to have a more intense and immersive fire fight with more technically developed elements in front of you rather than having to render a huge amount of terrain that you will never see.

Red Orchestra has the Perfect balance in my opinion, PR to an extent, to sum up my view, forcing realism in unrealistic elements of the gameplay i.e ( revives, spawning etc etc) should always be looked at with gameplay as the primary motive, realism comes second.


3. Can a game have to much realism? If so: at what point does a game have to much realism?(Like when vehicles needs petrol, avatars need to eat, go to the toilet or other stuff like when shot in a leg you can't use that limb etc.)

Im all for patrolling, eating, sleeping etc, if it has a direct outcome on something, i.e is worth doing or actually achieve something. Doing it for the sake of doing it is a fundamental floor in some games in my opinion.

4. When does a realistic game become a simulation instead?

Well, I would assume a simulator is there to test actual soldiers on drills and how they should respond to situations. This is its purpose, I would separate the two in that you should have fun/enjoyment in playing a game instead of being tested by a piece of software on your job.


5. Would you consider PR a simulation?

No. It may have some elements that some may elude to being like a simulator but simply put the BF2 engine holds back PR in most of its realism aspects, and in my opinion its a good thing. I liked PR the most back in the first two campaigns of the tournament, simply BF2 with some better sounds, guns did more damage, new maps etc. That for me nailed it. Realism can only be pushed so far in an engine that was not designed for such a use.

wait wait wait - that sounds familar. Didn't we have that kind of post a while ago?

Ah, screw it. I don't wanna be the one who killed the thread

1. Why do you prefer playing PR instead of vanilla BF?
Vanilla BF2 is simply annoying in many many aspects. I'm basically fond of slow games to be quite honest^^ And some realism never hurts.
2. Do you prefer more realism in a game?
Depends. To a certain limit, yes. The more believable, the more immersive a game is, the better. Which is a problem with ArmA for example, I just didn't feel immersed, even though it was of course realism. So no, realism doesn't equal fun, otherwise I wouldn't play at all^^
3. Can a game have to much realism? If so: at what point does a game have to much realism?(Like when vehicles needs petrol, avatars need to eat, go to the toilet or other stuff like when shot in a leg you can't use that limb etc.)
Yes, of course. In an RPG, I have no problem with eating, drinking, vehicles that need petrol or something. It depends on the kind of game of course. But as soon as a game turns into work, it's not much fun anymore.
4. When does a realistic game become a simulation instead?
As I said, when it's more work than fun.
5. Would you consider PR a simulation?
Certainly not.

1. Why do you prefer playing PR instead of vanilla BF?

Teamwork and realism. I really do enjoy a game more when it at least attempts to accurately reflect real life. As for teamwork, everything is more fun when you're working with people.

2. Do you prefer more realism in a game?

Yes, as long as it contributes to enjoyable gameplay. Forcing players to do meaningless or boring tasks, like deliver supplies, is something I dislike. But things like deviation and suppression, that mimic real life better than VFB2, I find more enjoyable.

3. Can a game have to much realism? If so: at what point does a game have to much realism?(Like when vehicles needs petrol, avatars need to eat, go to the toilet or other stuff like when shot in a leg you can't use that limb etc.)

Yes, when the realism forces you to do something meaningless or boring. Then it becomes a simulator, which can be useful for learning, but isn't really fun.

4. When does a realistic game become a simulation instead?

See above.

5. Would you consider PR a simulation?

Not at all. It's nowhere near realistic enough. ArmA is what I first think of as a widely available simulator for combat. There are a lot of controls, it's bulky and hard to use, and while you can take a lot of actions and do a lot of things you cannot do in PR, most of them are not directly related to your desire to have fun shooting virtual people. Some examples are all the animations available in ArmA, or commanding a squad of bots, etc. These are things that allow you to get more done perhaps, but they are expansions away from the FPS genre.

Mind if I only answer you second questions?

Yes, I prefer realism in games. The reason to why I play games in the first place is that I want to "get involved" in another world than the real one of my everyday-life. In order to really feel that I am part of the game world it has to be believable and feel like it's "real". In a game that features, for example, weapons that exist in the Real World, realistic handling of these weapons is important. If they don't appear, sound or handles the same way as in real life, the whole image of a real and believable game-world can be destroyed.

This, for me, includes "boring" tasks like transporting supplies and repairs to the frontlines, defending a position far away from the actual frontline, etc. All of this contributes to that "image" of being somewhere else, in another world. I don't play games for the adrenaline-kick of the action-moments, but because I want to get sucked into this whole different world. Realism (even the boring parts) is a very good way of accomplishing that, the illusion of actually being on a distant battlefield.

1. Why do you prefer playing PR instead of vanilla BF?

As someone has pointed out Vanilla is quite a boring game of Rock Paper Scissors. If I'm not getting TK'd for a Plane/Chopper, I'm simply playing the "How quick can I get to where I died with the appropriate kit" game. The team work is absolutely amazing, I have only once gotten on a squad with people that I found distasteful, over all the community seems to be great!



2. Do you prefer more realism in a game?

Absolutely, don't get me wrong I still enjoy arcady games, I get great enjoyment out of Counter-Strike and TF2, however I remember feeling almost offended when BF2 came out and it was so cheesy. I used to play Rainbow 6 (The original, not this new console stuff they've come up with) 1-3 online and it was some of the best gaming I've ever had. I have always wanted a large scale non-urban combat focused game that held true to reality (close enough) that I'd get into it.

I love the fact that I can choose to be a transport driver, I love the fact that sometimes I just sit around in an APC waiting for a pick up call. I love the fact that just because my cross hairs are on someone's head , doesn't mean I get a head shot! I love the sitting and waiting on defense because honestly? Sitting around and waiting is quite a bit of what the military does.

3. Can a game have to much realism? If so: at what point does a game have to much realism?(Like when vehicles needs petrol, avatars need to eat, go to the toilet or other stuff like when shot in a leg you can't use that limb etc.)

I think that this question is hard to answer while staying on the topic of PR when you push it to the extent of eating/toilet. I'd point out that if you want a game with eating and toilets, The Sims is the game for you! I believe that when you get shot in the leg you should limp, I believe when you get shot in the arm you should suffer an accuracy penalty.

4. When does a realistic game become a simulation instead?

I am of a firm belief that there is no such thing, nor can there ever be a proper simulation of war. Anyone who has served in any military and seen combat will agree with me on this. At no point will there be a video game that simulates the anxiety of watching someone bleed out, or hearing the *tink tink tink* of 7.62 hitting the side of your humvee. If you make a game where I can literally feel the air pressure change when I hear "That buzzing sound" as a round passes my head, I'll happily eat my words, but until then I stand by it, there is no such thing as combat simulation, it is simply not possible.


5. Would you consider PR a simulation?

Absolutely not, I think it's a very fun game and I really do enjoy how tacticle it gets but I can promise you that many of the tactics that we as gamers use on a daily basis playing PR, we would not even consider in the slightest if there were real bullets being fired at us.

Also, last time I checked an Epi Pen and a medic kit don't bring me back to full working order after taking a round in the chest.



Please don't misconstrue my statements, I really , really really love PR, I only found out about it about three weeks ago, but I really... really enjoy it!

# Why do you prefer playing PR instead of vanilla BF?
more teamword basicly, the guys are nice and poeple play with tactics and its slower a game lasts upto 2-3 hours instead or 15 mins
# Do you prefer more realism in a game?
yes i do it gives me a thrill
# Can a game have to much realism?
yes it can
# When does a realistic game become a simulation instead?
when it takes more than 10 hours per game
# Would you consider PR a simulation?

no it doesn't take 10 hours per game

Why do you prefer playing PR instead of vanilla BF?

Teamwork. I used to play games like James Bond and Halo, but gave it all up for vBF2 because of mass player co-op. PR is just the next step deeper.

I find games boring to play by myself. I like a strong teamwork element that you can't find in typical FPSs or even MMORPGs.

Do you prefer more realism in a game?

I prefer realism in a game oppsed to 733tness in a game.

Can a game have to much realism? If so: at what point does a game have to much realism?

Mose-keyboard input cannot match what the human body can do (or can't do) in a real environment. Therefore, the most realistic game really isn't. Just the limitations of the system.

There will always be a group of players that will play a game no matter how realistic.

But you can't be ridiculous. Even in simulations you don't have to stop to take a ****.

When does a realistic game become a simulation instead?

Games are designed to be fun and enjoyable. Simulations are designed to train and teach.

Would you consider PR a simulation?

No. PR is designed to be enjoyable, therefore, is not a simulation.

Why do you prefer playing PR instead of vanilla BF?

Because it is more realistic. This realism has gone to the level of making the gameplay very slow which allows for tactical maneuvres which would otherwise be worthless and/or not very time efficient. This requires teamwork and it's good to be part of a team (even if it's 5 people you've never seen or spoken to before in your life).

Do you prefer more realism in a game?

In every game I play I prefer Realism.

Can a game have to much realism? If so: at what point does a game have to much realism?

Yes. Where the genre of the game is missed. The genre of PR is war and it does it well. When you have to do nothing for hours. Vehicles needing petrol is fine. Getting shot in a limb and not being able to use it is fine. Polishing and cleaning your rifle and vehicle might be fun but that isn't a game.

When does a realistic game become a simulation instead?

Realistic. Realistic means that it's kind of close to Reality and in many ways PR is. To become a simulation the 'gamey' elements need to be removed and that produces a steep learning curve (similar to those that you will find in simulators). Think of a first person shooter removing crosshairs (crosshairs are even present in simulations) but in PR and WWII online...

Would you consider PR a simulation?

Absolutely.

Why do you prefer playing PR instead of vanilla BF?
I play PR when I get tired of the spammy, epileptic gameplay of BF2. Firefights in BF2 are decided by 70% reflexes, 20%tactics, and 10% hitreg. PR firefights are 25% reflexes, 55% tactics, and 10% hitreg (bad hitreg can screw you up here just as much as in BF2. PR also has better maps, better sounds, and better graphics, making for an overall better atmosphere.

Do you prefer more realism in a game?
To a certain extent, yes.
Can a game have to much realism? If so: at what point does a game have to much realism?(Like when vehicles needs petrol, avatars need to eat, go to the toilet or other stuff like when shot in a leg you can't use that limb etc.)
I'd say it gets too realistic when you are forced to perform tedious real-life tasks that have no effect on the gameplay. Things such as eating, cleaning things, all-day patrols, being court martialed if you mess up, becoming permanently disabled if you get wounded badly, etc.

When does a realistic game become a simulation instead?
When all relevant aspects of the situation represented within the game are replicated as close as possible to their real life counterparts as technology permits.

Would you consider PR a simulation?
Not at all. PR is balanced between realism and gameplay, and that's the way it ought to be.

Can a game have to much realism? If so: at what point does a game have to much realism?

I will only answer this question as realism is a notion of relativity or perspective (point of view). Something can be "realist" for someone and can't be for another one. Just read the long list of posts where they agree or disagree about a suggestion for instance.
A game is a simulation of reality but again it is the point of view of the person who makes this simulation that matters here.
There are no answers to this question in a philosophical way of speaking

[2]Do you prefer more realism in a game?
I prefer lots of realism in a game. Games like Modern Warfare mulitplayer is too much of an arcade style game. It is a run and gun type game and I can't stand the fact that the objective is to rush in shoot as many people as you can before you die. Then do it all over again. PR has a lot to offer. First off, you actually have to know how to learn how to fly helicopters and jets. You can't just jump into an aircraft and just go. I like the variety of roles the game offers as well. Infantry, Base defense, FOB troops, Armor, etc. I also like the down time that is there every once in a while for example, building a firebase and waiting for Intel on a cache on Insurgency mode.
[3]Can a game have to much realism? If so: at what point does a game have to much realism?(Like when vehicles needs petrol, avatars need to eat, go to the toilet or other stuff like when shot in a leg you can't use that limb etc.)
I don't think that there is too much realism in any game. If a game has achieved that then I haven't played it. Vehicle needing gas is a great idea. PR should impliment this. Needing to eat and go take a **** would be amusing but I am not sure how a game could impliment this correctly. Getting shot in the leg and not being able to use that in the game would be interesting too but once again, it has to be done just right. The player doesn't want to be out of the game the whole time. So I guess there is a such thing as too much realism.

I feel that the Team work is an essential ingredient to PR and it does the job well. Getting rid of Rally points I think a good idea. Initially, I thought that it would be a bad idea, but in giving more thought, it is more realistic. The Forward Outpost is a great idea but is under utilized. Making the FOB more utilized will be a good thing. Too many times there are abandoned FOBs. I have been a BF2 fan since it has come out and since PR, I don't even enjoy the arcade style gameplay anymore. I just wish we had more maps, game modes, and players. PR does a great job overall in providing a realistic type game that creates teamwork on both sides. And yes I think it is the best simulation game out there.

I really like realism in a game. It makes a game feel like a big adventure and experience in multiplayer.
My ideal would be a bug free ARMA II that softens the realism of 1 live dead game over wait for this game to end with limited rally points or the like (maybe making them dissapear after so many spawns).

The foreplay of being deployed over an 15 min flight taking out a tank by coordinating air support or equalizing a ground fight situation by having my CAS operator call in an airstrike adds a lot of atmosphere fun and in the end more things to do.
Spawning and spamming tanks with 5 realods out of your rocket launcher while you parachute out of a blackhawk is imo the road to this http://www.theonion.com/content/video/h ... e_consists . VBF 2 isnt very far off.