Arma 2 like Project Reality?

[kocrachon 2]

I've simply been trying to gauge why he has the nerve to criticise the complex game mechanics of the PR game mode (even if used on Arma/Arma 2) even though he plays far simpler game modes. It's astounding. All of ArmA's realistic qualities serve to further enhance the PR experience. Let people play what they want without criticising it all the time.

Aside from my sniper war map, how on earth do you even know what modes I play? How do you know they are simple? Or is that just an assumption?

And please tell me what is so complex about the game mechanics in PR? Again ArmA is far more complex. Not just taking into consideration the level of realism, but what you can accomplish with simple scripting.

Less not forget that the game mode is what people are trying to claim makes PR soooo realistic. Whens its not the game mode. Its the movements, the equipment, and other little things that gives PR the reality in it. Which in the long run, still falls short of what realism is. Then again, that is the BF2 engine being very limited.

I give the PR team credit for making BF2 more realistic, but the game mode falls short of realism (that's not THEIR fault, that's BF2s fault). But in the long run they are throwing real guns in a fake environment.

There is nothing in PR that you cannot accomplish with a simple bit of SQS. Whether it is crew checks, weapon checks, game play style or game mode.

And if its missing in ArmA, anyone can take their time and make it. Where as in PR you cannot accomplish this.

And you keep saying I contradict myself. All you claim is contradictory of myself is how I say this game was not designed off the principle of PVP, but at the same time I play PVP. I don't say its not allowed, I dont say no one should, I dont say its wrong. I just say, it is not the focus.

For every 1 TDM or DM map I have made, I have about 20 coop missions in its place. I am not saying its wrong to play TDM, I am saying the level of realism in ArmA goes well beyond the TDM mode of PR.

PR is a run and gun, minor team work in a casual public server, with a group of some odd people deciding for some minor team work such as taking a tank and a back up vehicle and storming a point.

At the same time, I do say that if you start to incorporate a game mode like BF2/PRs, and you advertise the game in that style, it will lose alot of what it was. The game was not meant to be a TDM game. It was meant to be a game engine that the players were allowed to do what ever they wanted with it. If players WANT that mode, they MAKE that mode, BIS should not package it and advertise it as the point of the game.

Meaning if people WANTED to do TDM, that was an option, but the scripting and dynamics of the mission editor make it far easier, and far more fun to play against the AI. With the amount of tweaking they do to bring the AI up to par and consumer standards, and very little support in the world of TDM, it gives a good idea what what BIS was trying to accomplish.

How easy is it to make TDM compared to a coop game? A pretty big pain if you want respawns. Because for some reason BIS didn't incorporate an easy spawn system in the game. But again why would they? This was meant to be a realism combat simulator where you don't come back.

Yes, you mention BIS did incorporate a new game mode specifically for PVP. but what version was that at? Not till 1.14. That came out what, a YEAR and a half later. And that was after some demand for it. But it still is in very little use. The PVP market out there for ArmA uses it, but again as we have seen that is not a huge demand. Between the ratio of people for and against the PR style, plus the lack of servers, and people who host private servers such as Squint, its easy to see where the majority of the loyalty of the community is. The same as it was during OFP, Coop.

I have nothing against the game mode, I may bash it, but its because I dont feel its what BIS should focus on. They should leave arma as is. A game engine, to edit out our discretion, make what WE want, and do what WE want with it. If you want to play TDM, go on ahead. You want to play capture the flag? go ahead, I won't be playing there, I have no problem with it. What I am saying, is

DO NOT INCORPORATE IT INTO THE GAME AND USE IT AS A SELLING POINT.

Edited May 16, 2009 by HavocDemon

[dr_eyeball 16]

I have already covered every one of those paragraphs, which you conveniently skipped.

Main concern?

That's funny. It sounds like all you are simply worried about is BIS somehow putting PR game mode as the main part of Arma 2, promoting that aspect and also you found someone who called it 'realistic'.

You are so paranoid about nothing. That's never ever going to happen. It's not even possible, which is why I explained what a game mode is. BIS already have selling points which are more impressive. Arma 2 already includes all you need to recreate it. My quotes:

Quote: "Nobody is asking for PR to become the new Arma 2 or something. Don't be an idiot."

Quote: "Why are you fruitloops comparing PR to Arma? ..."

Quote: "...common sense indicates he (new poster) should have asked: "Will Arma 2 include a PR styled game-mode mission or addon?" For which the answer is simply "No" or "Very unlikely", but can be added by the community."

Modes you play: We know some of the game modes you play because you already told us. One is "single life coop missions", the other is "various DM" game modes and probably more.

Game play mechanics: It's obvious the game play mechanics required to achieve a win for the team are more complex than TDM since there are more tasks involved given the: commander system, bunker construction, vehicle systems, weapon systems, comm's system, groups system, etc. Even 1 single task makes that statement true.

I have already provided a link to the 35 page manual. I don't feel like it will be beneficial to this discussion to summarise it for you, since it's obvious you have not read any of the previous material so far.

PR is soooo realistic? I have already explained that PR is not realistic multiple times and how people generalise and misuse the word. I'll even quote myself:

Quote: "I don't think you can call it "realistic" (it's just better than the average game)"

Quote: "Nobody is saying it is realistic and the game mode doesn't need to "fit realism" to your standard, just something near that."

Quote: "Why are you fruitloops comparing "Realism" in PR to Arma? The talk about realism is pointless. ... I think when people are carelessly applying it to PR, they are really simply recognising the game mode rules which brings the game closer to fair game play than the base engine allows..."

BIS are not focusing on it, only the community through dozens of posts and dev's who create the game modes. Allow the community to discuss the PR game modes in peace without your paranoid assertions.

[kocrachon 2]

I have already covered every one of those paragraphs, which you conveniently skipped.

Main concern?

That's funny. It sounds like all you are simply worried about is BIS somehow putting PR game mode as the main part of Arma 2, promoting that aspect and also you found someone who called it 'realistic'.

You are so paranoid about nothing. That's never ever going to happen. It's not even possible, which is why I explained what a game mode is. BIS already have selling points which are more impressive. Arma 2 already includes all you need to recreate it. My quotes:

Modes you play: We know some of the game modes you play because you already told us. One is "single life coop missions", the other is "various DM" game modes and probably more.

Game play mechanics: It's obvious the game play mechanics required to achieve a win for the team are more complex than TDM since there are more tasks involved given the: commander system, bunker construction, vehicle systems, weapon systems, comm's system, groups system, etc. Even 1 single task makes that statement true.

I have already provided a link to the 35 page manual. I don't feel like it will be beneficial to this discussion to summarise it for you, since it's obvious you have not read any of the previous material so far.

PR is soooo realistic? I have already explained that PR is not realistic multiple times and how people generalise and misuse the word. I'll even quote myself:

BIS are not focusing on it, only the community through dozens of posts and dev's who create the game modes. Allow the community to discuss the PR game modes in peace without your paranoid assertions.

And you apparently skipped the last 17 pages of argument that you were not a part of. You took the time to address the one question of the original poster. My previous post are directed towards the people from pages 2-17 comparing the realism of the two.

You on the other hand come in with your opinion, with half the information needed.

And as to my Dont incorporate it into ArmA, that too was directed at the other 17 pages you skipped, and even a couple of other posts that keep poping up on here. People keep saying ArmA needs a PR/BF2 style of game play in order to sell well, that they should incorporate it to make the game more fun. I was addressing THIS concern that THESE people are asking for, I have little to speak to you about since you felt the need to but into a conversation that apparently you didn't pay enough attention to before posting.

Then again I find it funny you call me biased when you are also insanely biased in any of your arguments. After all, you made an entire devastation series of maps. You are a part of a website that specializes in it. So of course your easily going to do what ever it takes to defend it.

And as for my game modes, yes, I do those and more, again, you act like the PR missions are so much more complex then any coop mission could ever be. Complex is more than just taking some flags, communicating, and so forth.

Edited May 16, 2009 by HavocDemon

[nodunit 397]

Whoever said we wanted it as a selling point? First the topic was about comparison of the two and wether or not PR players could migrate to Arma due to similarity.

Then we started the idea of maybe having some PR like missions, thats all.

[njmatrix 2]

OK PR guys heres a clue. Ever have that guy you argued with for HOURS upon hours that JUST because your car wasn't a Chevy Chevelle but a Pontiac GTO it sucked COMPLETELY just by the shear fact it wasn't a Chevy... Now apply that argument to the ArmA community and you will realise that DESPITE them BOTH being awesome cars you will never get a koolaid drinker to admit the GTO was a sweet ride.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Well, I for one wouldn't mind a PR based fully dynamic coop gamemode in Arma2, with enforced teamplay and equipment limits. Mechanics would need to be put in so it is possible to still have fun when a lone sole is starting the server, such as either ease up on the limitations and enforcements or make him chosse 'stuff to do' that can be done solo.

Is PR a single group creating game mods for various games, or are there different PR for each game?

[dr_eyeball 16]

@HavocDemon: I would never suggest that "PR missions are more complex than any coop". I compared them to TDM only, which you said you played and PR is TvT too, so it's relevant.

I came in with my very first post being aimed at everyone in the thread with extra information in an attempt to clarify some of the misconceptions and the invalid reasoning being thrown around.

It's only the direct response at the end which was directed at you, in order to correct some of your repeated incorrect simple information about PR. After which you continued with more of the same, so of course I would then direct the information at you.

@CarlGustaffa: I don't think a Coop-only mode would work well, since the whole PR concept is designed around TvT. Getting the AI to perform the same 50 tasks as humans would prove to be too much work and would not be as satisfying to play. I've tried a basic mode in Arma and PR has a SP mode too which uses zero tactics.

The PR dev group was looking for an alternative engine to switch to. I think one of their key criteria is strong network code.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

No I ment for the player side in a coop. Add some of the mechanics of PR to change the focus from heavy weapons rambo warfare to staying alive as infantryman. For the AI side, it will still be Arma AI with the typical scripted behaviors for better flanking, calling in reinforcements, sharing information etc. It looks like a lot of the PR features could easily make it into Arma/Arma2.

[koroush47 10]

No, ArmA, and soon to be ArmA II, are much more serious than Project Reality. Project Reality is "realistic", ArmA and ArmA II are considered simulators. Proper ballistics, realistic damage values, etc. One shot through the head will kill you instantly, and even one shot to the torso could kill you as well.

In ArmA, you have the ability to pilot multiple different aircraft, crew tanks and drive a number of different wheeled vehicles. It is going to be the same in ArmA II, with even more additions to each field.

Multiplayer in ArmA has always been enjoyable. Sadly, some over-played maps and mods have taken over the multiplayer scene in ArmA and it becomes really hard to find a good server to play on. With the advent of ArmA II, I'm sure that there'll be tons of good servers for us to choose from.

There are multiple different modes available for multiplayer in ArmA. You have your usual deathmatches, team deathmatches, capture the flag, etc. but then you also have coops and PvP maps. One of the most popular being Warfare, which was released in the v1.14 patch. Coops and Warfare are the most popular modes in ArmA multiplayer.

The AI has never been absolutely amazing in either OFP or ArmA, but ArmA II looks like it's going to change all of that with the addition of MicroAI. Check out some of the videos and you can see just what they can do when reacting to any given stimulus dynamically.

So would that make ARMA 2 the most realistic FPS on pc?

If it's considered a simulator.

[Litos 10]

So would that make ARMA 2 the most realistic FPS on pc?

If it's considered a simulator.

Well technically yes, besides VBS2? But VBS2 isnt really game, it's a training sim thing for military. (Afaik)

[-)rStrangelove 0]

To sum all the discussion in this thread up a bit:

- PR is a mod with certain rules for BF2

- ArmA is a game with editing capabilities. A custom mission can be designed to play like PR (up to a certain extent).

We saw useless discusssions about which one is better than the other, but it's like comparing exotic fruits with a hole meal on a table.

PR is what it is and cannot change.

An ArmA mission can be whatever you want it to be.

All it takes now is that PR fans come together with ArmA mission designers and have a CONSTRUCTIVE discussion about what to do.

Amen.

[whisper 0]

)rStrangelove;1285820']

All it takes now is that PR fans come together with ArmA mission designers and have a CONSTRUCTIVE discussion about what to do.

Amen.

Amen indeed

[sparks50 0]

This mission may interest you. Its the Insurgency mode from PR, with kit limitations etc.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=71922

[nodunit 397]

Ooh nice. It follows the rules of PR's insurgency very closely, thanks for that link!

[vilas 477]

An ArmA mission can be whatever you want it to be.

no

there are many bugs, like colisions

try to make mission, which support vehicles move in column, example 3 tanks, 3 bmp, 2 trucks... for sure on some forest/curved/mountain road one of tanks will push of road bmp

make simple mission as 6 tanks in base, 18 crew members go to enter those tanks, because there is alarm... 1 of tanks will be soon upside down, cause during first steps it was colided by others

some crew will die driven by tank

Arma alows to much in missions, but sometimes i feel like SP missionmaking in OFP was much better

i hope in Arma2 there will not be problems with colisions between vehicles moving in column

[whisper 0]

Honestly, I had the exact same issues in OFP. I remember doing the convoy missions again and again because of said issues, for example

[-)rStrangelove 0]

Should be fixable with higher distances between the vehicles i guess. I don't see what this has to do with PR gameplay though. :P

[wormeaten 0]

Any news about something like PR in Arma?

[Timmoboy 10]

There is a PR mission to Arma 1 but not 2.

[Skodz 10]

I also hope Arma 2 multiplayer is at least as good as PR.

Most PR players plays as a team, use communications and tactics. Thats what I am looking for on arma 2 mp.

[SG_Smokintodd 0]

Dr Eyeball told me that he's continuing work on his Devastatation mission for ArmA2. For you PR fans (yes, I'm a huge fan and active PR player), this should be what the doctor ordered;

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=74699

[Farks 0]

Some of the PR-devs are currently at early stages of making PR2. They will be using the C4-engine.

[SG_Smokintodd 0]

Some of the PR-devs are currently at early stages of making PR2. They will be using the C4-engine.

Interesting. Is this the engine they won from the MOTY?

[Skodz 10]

No, its another engine.

http://www.realitymod.com/forum/f18-pr-suggestions/51326-ideas-pr-future-engine-ideas-suggestions-33.html#post1047310

C4 Engine

http://www.terathon.com/c4engine/index.php

[dunedain 48]

[..]ideally it will look like CoD4, play like Infiltration, have the scale of ArmA, the accessibility, team structures and innovations of PR1 & some new PR2 innovations to tie it all together[...]

Right from my dreams !!

Apparently, they want to release it on Steam with monthly or annual subscription, 3€/month or 30€/year.

Sounds promising. :)

Edited June 25, 2009 by dunedain