Project Reality Forums

Well, ever since I started playing Project Reality, I've begun to ask more and more often what is realistic in Project Reality and what isn't.

No matter what you say, Project Reality is still a game, but just more realistic then your standard headless chickens shooting at other headless chickens game.

So I suppose it boils down to a very basic question of whether unrealistic changes in the name of realistic behavior is better then realistic behavior being sacrificed for realistic equipment, ie deviation that is down to how well you control recoil, where it is down to how well you control your mouse and how well you gauge distance, and how well you compensate for it.

In essence, Project Reality follows the former school of thought, and another game, Red Orchestra, goes for the latter. In Red Orchestra, it is all about who can guess the range of the enemy better, who can get their tank shell to hit just the right place, and who can lead the most accurately. In Red Orchestra, I see that in general, most people lone wolf in pubs. People will, however, move and act in a general order. People who run into each other tend to stay together, and people back you up when clearing out rooms.

If you happen to run into a video of Red Orchestra: Heroes of Stalingrad, you'll see demonstrations of how they've tried to advance technical realism even further. Weapons collide with the world, they have realistic sway, you have free aim in iron sights, and you have zoom in iron sights that makes proportions more realistic. When you deploy your bipod, you pivot around your weapon, rather then the weapon pivoting around you.

So the question is whether realistic behavior is better or worse then realistic capabilities. Is the forcing of every weapon to be mostly suppressive an acceptable compromise in order to have realistic behavior, and is allowing players to do things alone an acceptable compromise for realistic capabilities?

I 100% agree But what Project Reality dose is take a "headless chicken" and turned it into a game where its easyer to be a Teamplayer and Funner, TBH VBF2 isnt a Battlefield and Nor is Project Reality But its the fact that its more of one then vBF2 is, It as it says is a "Project" not a Reality its a Mod to Try and make vBF2 more Realistist as possible.
Even with your post about weapons and there reaction with the world around them PR is on an Engine Based on vBF2's With that inmind most things you ask for are not programmed into it, In Red Orchestra they have an engin based on that "extra" detail.

Love you tho.

Teamwork is definitely something that is good, but the counterpoint to that is that if you require at least two people to do anything, then it becomes arcane. If shooting your main tank gun with any sort of accuracy required a lase pointed, then wouldn't that be an example of teamwork gone too far?

I believe that if you take from reality, you should be able to achieve the teamwork that you want. After all, in reality armies utilize teamwork when you can't do something alone.

So I guess what it comes down to is whether you believe players will act together in order to achieve a win-win, even if you don't devise a way to force them to, or if you believe that players will most likely act in self-interest and lonewolf instead.

You see, the problem is that we can't stick electrodes to somewhere painful on people so they get shocked when they die.

Anyhow, here's to hoping the PR2 manages to do a Valve and find the sweet spot that yields the most realism, and most importantly, the most fun.

How about this game?

Ultra-Realistic Modern Warfare Game Features Awaiting Orders, Repairing Trucks | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Yeah PR goes for more teamwork than actual full on realism.
Personally i would prefer the actual realism but PR does have a reasonable balance between the two usually.

The term "realism" or "reality" when it comes to computer software is not a true measured value. There is no scale that is used to rate a program to determine if it's "realistic" or not. And obviously, any computer software that is trying to replicate physical life is never going to be "reality" but is instead a "virtual reality".

It seems the main focus of your topic is to bring out the differences between PR and other games, especially aspects such as weapons use and realism factors. Teamwork was also a mentioned point.


In my opinion, it's true that PR is very far from a "realistic" military simulator. But real life is not balanced, and PR is trying to maintain a level of balance in order to promote positive gameplay and entertainment. PR is also a mod built up from a core program that was never designed or intended to offer highly-realistic aspects such as weather, ballistics, etc. The fact is, if most of the general public got their hands on a true military sim they wouldn't be able to get past the first five minutes. Nor would the general public find a "real" simulator the least bit entertaining.

There are certain aspects of PR that aim for more realism than other similar games, but with this engine and with the overall goals of the mod, increasing realism past a certain point is either counter-productive or even impossible.


There are military simulation programs out there that are trully realistic in almost every aspect possible in a computer program. I have personally worked with such programs, and have seen their capabilities. And as a former soldier, I know first-hand what realism actually is.

The key point to remember about military simulation programs is that they are never designed or intended to function as a sole training tool. They are meant to supplement real-world training, by allowing certain dangerous or expensive tasks to be done in a virtual environment, and to extend the training options of units when time, location, equipment, or weather limit their real-world options. You will never find a real-world military organization or law enforcement/government agency that uses computer-based simulations as their sole training method.


When it comes to games, the general public is neither trained or experienced in military skills that are required for such software. Many of the tasks associated with military training are also not "enjoyable" or entertaining to most of the public, so participating in a realistic training scenario would be boring, too complex, or just impossible. This is why so many games add and remove aspects of reality in order to balance the game and make it fun for those playing it.

When you have a game that allows players to participate on both sides of the conflict, that also creates a problem. If you integrate a high level of realism, then everything is going to be out of balance. Chances are that one of the teams is going to have such a higher level of technology and equipment that the lower-equipped team is going to find winning almost impossible. In order to retain balance and fun for all, some aspects need to be strengthened above their realistic abilities, while other aspects are weakened. This balancing act is necessary, even though it does tend to take away from the overall "realism".


My opinion is that some, if not all, of the development team is unhappy with the current overall state of PR. And that's not because they aren't doing their jobs, but it's simply because they are trying to work with a very limited core game and engine that doesn't fit their needs/desires. This is why PR 2 is planned, using a totally new engine. The team will be able to finally create a game that they wanted all along, using the points that they want and not those "hardcoded" by the previous designers. I have a good feeling about how well PR 2 will progress.

As for PR 1, aspects are slowly being tweaked and improved on as new ideas become clear or new methods become available. While they are still adding realism to many aspects, there will always be something somewhere in the game where realism can't be increased without having a negative impact on the game. And overall, entertainment and teamwork are the most important part of PR. Considering what they have to work with, I think they have done an awesome job at creating this mod and look foward to seeing what the future holds.

[R-DEV]Ninja2dan wrote:The term "realism" or "reality" when it comes to computer software is not a true measured value. There is no scale that is used to rate a program to determine if it's "realistic" or not. And obviously, any computer software that is trying to replicate physical life is never going to be "reality" but is instead a "virtual reality".

It seems the main focus of your topic is to bring out the differences between PR and other games, especially aspects such as weapons use and realism factors. Teamwork was also a mentioned point.


In my opinion, it's true that PR is very far from a "realistic" military simulator. But real life is not balanced, and PR is trying to maintain a level of balance in order to promote positive gameplay and entertainment. PR is also a mod built up from a core program that was never designed or intended to offer highly-realistic aspects such as weather, ballistics, etc. The fact is, if most of the general public got their hands on a true military sim they wouldn't be able to get past the first five minutes. Nor would the general public find a "real" simulator the least bit entertaining.

There are certain aspects of PR that aim for more realism than other similar games, but with this engine and with the overall goals of the mod, increasing realism past a certain point is either counter-productive or even impossible.


There are military simulation programs out there that are trully realistic in almost every aspect possible in a computer program. I have personally worked with such programs, and have seen their capabilities. And as a former soldier, I know first-hand what realism actually is.

The key point to remember about military simulation programs is that they are never designed or intended to function as a sole training tool. They are meant to supplement real-world training, by allowing certain dangerous or expensive tasks to be done in a virtual environment, and to extend the training options of units when time, location, equipment, or weather limit their real-world options. You will never find a real-world military organization or law enforcement/government agency that uses computer-based simulations as their sole training method.


When it comes to games, the general public is neither trained or experienced in military skills that are required for such software. Many of the tasks associated with military training are also not "enjoyable" or entertaining to most of the public, so participating in a realistic training scenario would be boring, too complex, or just impossible. This is why so many games add and remove aspects of reality in order to balance the game and make it fun for those playing it.

When you have a game that allows players to participate on both sides of the conflict, that also creates a problem. If you integrate a high level of realism, then everything is going to be out of balance. Chances are that one of the teams is going to have such a higher level of technology and equipment that the lower-equipped team is going to find winning almost impossible. In order to retain balance and fun for all, some aspects need to be strengthened above their realistic abilities, while other aspects are weakened. This balancing act is necessary, even though it does tend to take away from the overall "realism".


My opinion is that some, if not all, of the development team is unhappy with the current overall state of PR. And that's not because they aren't doing their jobs, but it's simply because they are trying to work with a very limited core game and engine that doesn't fit their needs/desires. This is why PR 2 is planned, using a totally new engine. The team will be able to finally create a game that they wanted all along, using the points that they want and not those "hardcoded" by the previous designers. I have a good feeling about how well PR 2 will progress.

As for PR 1, aspects are slowly being tweaked and improved on as new ideas become clear or new methods become available. While they are still adding realism to many aspects, there will always be something somewhere in the game where realism can't be increased without having a negative impact on the game. And overall, entertainment and teamwork are the most important part of PR. Considering what they have to work with, I think they have done an awesome job at creating this mod and look foward to seeing what the future holds.

Well, it's certainly true that no one wants to play VBS2, but it would be nice to implement the things that should be added. We don't need to learn how to go to the loo in virtual reality, but we focus on the things that are in a standard shooter game like PR.

Shooting. We should implement as many realistic aspects of shooting without making it arcane. Sway, rifle's mechanical deviation only, breathing, bullet drop, possibly windage, free aim in all stances and modes of holding the weapon, the possibility of a jam, either one that is clear with tap-rack-bang, or one that requires you to lock the bolt back, drop the mag, and shake out the rounds. Realistic overheating effects on barrels, with increasing mechanical deviation, barrel becoming visibly heated, and eventually just destroying the barrel. You should be able to rest your weapon on the world, have bipods deploy in a realistic fashion, and have realistically reduced sway and reduced recoil. Weapons interact with world, etc.

Now, implementing all of this would be dandy, but the question that we have to ask is whether or not this is something that would detract from fun or teamwork.

Those of the community who have served in uniform know exactly what realism is, the rest of us learn about it via various media.

PR is about portraying realism within the confines of the engine

Weapon sway is realistic, cant do that so we use deviation

Fear is realistic, can't do that so we use suppression

Huge numbers of troops are realistic, can't do that so we spawn

etc

Project Reality isn't about portraying the real world down to the last grain of sand, its about making bf2 more realistic while preserving good gameplay.

My opinion is that some, if not all, of the development team is unhappy with the current overall state of PR. And that's not because they aren't doing their jobs, but it's simply because they are trying to work with a very limited core game and engine that doesn't fit their needs/desires. This is why PR 2 is planned, using a totally new engine. The team will be able to finally create a game that they wanted all along, using the points that they want and not those "hardcoded" by the previous designers. I have a good feeling about how well PR 2 will progress.

Dan is right.

So the question is whether realistic behavior is better or worse then realistic capabilities. Is the forcing of every weapon to be mostly suppressive an acceptable compromise in order to have realistic behavior, and is allowing players to do things alone an acceptable compromise for realistic capabilities?

I think you need to define realistic capabilities tbh

a good player can do stuff alone now, he just won't be as effective in as if he had his squad with him. Even if deviation was removed from the game, that would be the case. Deviation isn't about forcing teamwork imo its about portraying realism in the confines of the engine.

Hunt3r wrote:Shooting. We should implement as many realistic aspects of shooting without making it arcane. Sway, rifle's mechanical deviation only, breathing, bullet drop, possibly windage, free aim in all stances and modes of holding the weapon, the possibility of a jam, either one that is clear with tap-rack-bang, or one that requires you to lock the bolt back, drop the mag, and shake out the rounds. Realistic overheating effects on barrels, with increasing mechanical deviation, barrel becoming visibly heated, and eventually just destroying the barrel. You should be able to rest your weapon on the world, have bipods deploy in a realistic fashion, and have realistically reduced sway and reduced recoil. Weapons interact with world, etc.

None if this is due to any question of authenticity or lack of realism, the simple fact is that absolutely everything in the above paragraph is hardcoded so as to make it impossible to implement.

PR is about making the BF2 engine as realistic as possible, and compromising where necessary with those things that cannot be done or where extreme realism would be to the detriment of overall gameplay. This is something that it succeeds heavily in, and is rewarded for it by higher player numbers than even full retail games like ArmA 2.

Well, im going to think about PR as a sandbox. Sure you have a set flag order, or a squadleader, you have the limitations, but what makes PR for me such a good game, is that i can put my head in with 5 other people, and sometimes even more because of mumble and improvize and create new solutions to old problems.

Its the freedom that makes me like this, i can do whatever i want, no discipline, no nothing. What makes me create complex tactics, leadership positions? Creative solutions?

Its the gamer, the people Playing PR, who actually makes it what it is.

I promise you, put 64 vanilla players on PR, and they would get frustrated, if they played it for 10 hours, they would change how they act, how they think, cause to win, they need communication organization, tactics, cooperation etc. Its like this game trains you to think, it challenge you to become more than what you already, and even with its increasing depth with mumble, it still is lacking those last changes that would make it perfect. IE, having more realistic "physics" and game mechanicz, but keeping those controls to a minimum should be important.

Project reality is a game,
and it combines reality,
and teamwork to the same,
it will become my duality,
to balance real life,
and project reality!

PEACE.

Rudd likes my poems

i prefer teamwork over reality, for me without teamwork, there is no reality, or realistic game play, this is especially true, i heard, for games like ARMA and OFP2, Realistic games+ no teamwork= a resemblance to cod4mw2, which is bad

also brings the point in where PR has "epic" gameplay, in terms of players being near limitless with what they can do. I has a nice blend of "realistic" firefights while at the same time has the ability for a player to use a captured enemy engineer kit, attach C4 on the side, and have someone make much boom on the enemy.

In "realistic" games like arma or operation series, its more like "enemy spotted, engaging, clear" and in general FPS like COD series and Counter STrike - spawn in, shoot, die, respawn: rinse and repeat. Of course there are more variations to it but you can get the idea.

Regarding PR2, I hope its up to the player to do what they want inorder to win the game.
Give a player the assets and let them work with it versus trying to confine gameplay. Of course with balance, anti-exploits efforts to have that fair factor.


PR1 is the holy grail of what a game is for me. No other game i've played has matched the replayability and shear excitement.

Every thing else is generic, what the dev's did on the INS type gameplay alone is a testament of their skills and manhours they put into it.

They are essense have made their own gameplay.

Hunt3r wrote:Shooting. We should implement as many realistic aspects of shooting without making it arcane. Sway, rifle's mechanical deviation only, breathing, bullet drop, possibly windage, free aim in all stances and modes of holding the weapon, the possibility of a jam, either one that is clear with tap-rack-bang, or one that requires you to lock the bolt back, drop the mag, and shake out the rounds.

I'm assuming you have no military experience, nor do you have any first-hand experience with tactical simulation software such as VBS?

I have served as an instructor of weapons and tactics in the US Army as well as during my time as a law enforcement officer. I am still a licensed firearms instructor, and often provide training for various agencies. And you know what my opinion is? Your initial section of the post actually goes against all purposes of simulation software.

We use simulation software for aspects such as engaging targets, moving under fire, working as a team, clearing a house, etc. When we want to train on weapons fundamentals such as clearing a malfunction/stoppage, zeroing the sights, handling recoil during fully-automatic fire, etc we do so on the range. It's 100% impossible to replicate the physical feedback of a firearm using software alone, so doing tasks as you mentioned would actually be counter-productive and could damage the overall outcome of tactical training.

Realistic overheating effects on barrels, with increasing mechanical deviation, barrel becoming visibly heated, and eventually just destroying the barrel. You should be able to rest your weapon on the world, have bipods deploy in a realistic fashion, and have realistically reduced sway and reduced recoil. Weapons interact with world, etc.

I am personally for the integration of certain weapon dynamics such as barrel management and the proper use of supports. Unfortunately, the BF2 engine makes these things very difficult or impossible to add. These capabilities are already being discussed, but their addition to PR 1 might not be possible even with the great coding team we have now.

These kinds of things have already been suggested, and the team has thought about them. But getting them to work and to work correctly is a problem at fault by the game engine itself, not the developers.

Conman51 wrote:i prefer teamwork over reality, for me without teamwork, there is no reality, or realistic game play, this is especially true, i heard, for games like ARMA and OFP2, Realistic games+ no teamwork= a resemblance to cod4mw2, which is bad

When I used to play OFP a looong time ago, I really didn't see much of this problem. But then again, the groups I played with were all current or prior military or law enforcement, and we played the game in the same manner we trained to fight real combat.

Because the game was often a little more "realistic" than the general community desired, the most common MP maps being used were CTF/CTI or similar, where teamwork wasn't valued as much. Games like ArmA should be designed to work around teamwork, but the community itself is in my opinion the primary cause of the improper play style. It's hard to get civilians to play a game in the same manner that a soldier would, no matter what types of rules you use.

Roguehellhound wrote:Regarding PR2, I hope its up to the player to do what they want inorder to win the game.
Give a player the assets and let them work with it versus trying to confine gameplay. Of course with balance, anti-exploits efforts to have that fair factor.

There will still need to be a certain level of rules and directed order. As long as the game remains a military-like simulator then you will always need a level of leadership and command. Real military units operate within the guidelines of set doctrines, and although the senior planners have some ability to modify their battle plans and tactics to meet the situation, they are still generally confined to the use of their doctrines as a sort of base rulebook.

I am hoping to see PR 2 implement a good system that helps simulate the feeling of a realistic military organization, while still allowing the players to operate as they see fit within that system. But you can't just hand players their assets and tell them "Go kill that, and blow that up". You'd have another "vanilla" on your hands.

Oh come on, no one watched that Onion news video about realistic games? It's funny.

Been threads about it already Welcome to the forums though

[R-DEV]Ninja2dan wrote:I'm assuming you have no military experience, nor do you have any first-hand experience with tactical simulation software such as VBS?

Correct, I do not have military experience. I haven't played anything that could be considered a combat simulator though.

I have served as an instructor of weapons and tactics in the US Army as well as during my time as a law enforcement officer. I am still a licensed firearms instructor, and often provide training for various agencies. And you know what my opinion is? Your initial section of the post actually goes against all purposes of simulation software.

[R-DEV]Ninja2dan wrote:We use simulation software for aspects such as engaging targets, moving under fire, working as a team, clearing a house, etc. When we want to train on weapons fundamentals such as clearing a malfunction/stoppage, zeroing the sights, handling recoil during fully-automatic fire, etc we do so on the range. It's 100% impossible to replicate the physical feedback of a firearm using software alone, so doing tasks as you mentioned would actually be counter-productive and could damage the overall outcome of tactical training.

The thing is that a good chunk of people have not touched a gun or have much experience with it. It's a good idea to implement realistic weapon handling because it provides realistic limitations and it immerses you far more then laser-accurate weapons or deviation like the current system.

[R-DEV]Ninja2dan wrote:I am personally for the integration of certain weapon dynamics such as barrel management and the proper use of supports. Unfortunately, the BF2 engine makes these things very difficult or impossible to add. These capabilities are already being discussed, but their addition to PR 1 might not be possible even with the great coding team we have now.

Well, we'll see what can be done with PR2 about that then?

'[R-DEV wrote:Ninja2dan;1213273']When I used to play OFP a looong time ago, I really didn't see much of this problem. But then again, the groups I played with were all current or prior military or law enforcement, and we played the game in the same manner we trained to fight real combat.

Because the game was often a little more "realistic" than the general community desired, the most common MP maps being used were CTF/CTI or similar, where teamwork wasn't valued as much. Games like ArmA should be designed to work around teamwork, but the community itself is in my opinion the primary cause of the improper play style. It's hard to get civilians to play a game in the same manner that a soldier would, no matter what types of rules you use.

Well, that's because of different background. The goal here is not to force someone to follow military doctrine. If you give realistic capabilities, and realistic situations, then wouldn't you do things that would be what the military does? If you make it so that weapons are as accurate as you can control them, then wouldn't it follow that people will fill a niche, and since they can only accomplish so much, they'd use teamwork to achieve their ends? And if they instead try to be a square and lone-wolf, admins can go ahead and kick or something could accomplish that for them.

[R-DEV]Ninja2dan wrote:I am hoping to see PR 2 implement a good system that helps simulate the feeling of a realistic military organization, while still allowing the players to operate as they see fit within that system. But you can't just hand players their assets and tell them "Go kill that, and blow that up". You'd have another "vanilla" on your hands.

Implementing ROE, with increasing infractions, which would end with a kick seems like it would do just fine in this respect. I guess what I'm asking is whether this is a game where you are given more leeway in the way of not requiring to walk in formation, etc.

We all know that it's impractical to try and force 100 percent realistic behavior, but beyond putting people into a realistic military structure of squads and platoons, there's not much you can do. Players are hardcoded, they cannot be changed. If you want, you can say "Here are your capabilities, here's the ROE that is appropriate for the situation, accomplish these objectives, your SL has been informed of what to do." That's all you can really do.

In reality, you can ride around, in combat engineer equipment taken from an enemy, strap it to a tank, drive away, and watch the fireworks, but no person in the military would be permitted to do that. Now I have to ask whether or not realistic capabilities would be more fun and/or more realistic then realistic behavior.