Arma 2 like Project Reality?

[DieterWeber 0]

Right from my dreams !!

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

Sounds promising. :)

Ya... Horrible idea. I'm not buying the game every year.

[Smee 10]

being a long time PR player i'm enjoying ARMA2. The environment is more immersion and bigger than PR maps. BF2 engine has it limits and its getting close to them.

I know the its early days but am very hopeful of what ARMA2 has to offer and could be the next stepping stone for a lot of gamers. That much so have ordered a 4890 just to play arma2.

don't let us down BI

[White_Hat 0]

Sorry to say but right now ArmA2 isen´t much fun playing online on public servers, it´s crowded with a**holes who TK, blow up assets in the base or just grab a transport helo and dust off alone.

Gameplay mechanics wise PR is still the lone king of the hill without any competitors in sight. The amount of teamplay coordination and communication i have even on public servers of PR can´t be scrached by ArmA2.

[kocrachon 2]

Sorry to say but right now ArmA2 isen´t much fun playing online on public servers, it´s crowded with a**holes who TK, blow up assets in the base or just grab a transport helo and dust off alone.

Gameplay mechanics wise PR is still the lone king of the hill without any competitors in sight. The amount of teamplay coordination and communication i have even on public servers of PR can´t be scrached by ArmA2.

I think you have it backwards.. because that is what I went through every day of PR until I quit the entire BF2 series completely.

Your biggest problem is playing in pugs. This game, just like PR, is best played with a clan. I don't have a public server. We have a private server with Coop missions and a private evolution server.

We have one warfare server, but hardly play on it, but we dont run into a lot of tking issue.

[dunedain 48]

I was an Ofp and ArmA player long before i knew Project Reality, but i must agree with White_Hat.

I play Project Reality daily on full 64 servers without any clan, and i don't get tked like on ArmA2.

Even on public games only skilled people are allowed to take choppers and nobody blow everything which stand in your main base, I just join a random squad and I play with them, i follow the team leader, attack the objectives he assigns to the group, it works pretty fine ...

I don't know when the last time you played PR, but since 0.8 "now 0.86" it's a model of what to do in term of accessibility and team structures, players are great the only big limitation is Bf2 engine.

If for you it's normal to be forced to join a clan, buy a private server and play only with your mates .. I've nothing else to say.

Ya... Horrible idea. I'm not buying the game every year.

I've never subscripted to any game, i played Wow in private servers and even without the lags, it definitely don't worth 13€/month.

3€ per month subscription maybe without have to buy the game, "until now they only plan to release on Steam", I think it's a good deal knowing who are behind this game.

Edited June 26, 2009 by dunedain

[whisper 0]

The TK and such issues will wear off with time, "kids" will soon be fed up of the game

[horror1 10]

i absolutely agree with whitehat and dunedain.

i can join any public server in pr at any time and any random squad and i have awsome teamwork without beeing forced to join any clan.

pr is the ONLY online mp game where i have EVER saw so much teamplay without playing in a clan or on private servers.

i play arma and arma 2 for absolute different reasons but none of them comes close to pr teamplay and gamestyle.

pr has its own unique magic formular to force ppl into maxed teramplay without feeling forced though:)

arma 1 and 2 are superior in grafics and the huge amount of different things u can do but there is no automatic teamplay when u r online.

i dont even know why it works so perfect in pr while it fails so terribly in any other mil sim ive ever played.

perhaps its the unrealistic feeling when u play in arma while u feel very real embedded in pr, no idea how to explain exactly the diference i just never felt real in arma 1 or 2 while at the very same moment i join a pr server i feel the dirt and heat and all these things :D

since 7 months i play only arma bcause i cant use my mic anymore and pr isnt played well without a mic so i moved to arma and had also great moments there but 80% is not even close to a simple round in pr:(

i do not doubt that clans or squads do not have their awsome arma gameplay i just doubt that public is capable of the same good pr public play.

[nodunit 397]

I think it's mostly due to the fact that one person alone is generally nothing in PR, you can't do everything by yourself such as pilot aircraft, use armor or hell even take the enemies vehicles whereas in Arma2 you can.

But we've been over this countless times, hopefully some PR based Arma2 missions will be released with those restrictions.

PR is lesser in graphics so it naturally has less kiddies as well, Arma1 suffered this due to graphics for a time and Arma2 will as well, it will only take some time before they move on to the next game btu by then I fear the community will have once more locked itself away in private passworded servers, effectively destroying most online play without realising it.

[synch_c 10]

Speaking as a long term ofp (since the demo) and PR (two or three years) player I would like to add something I think has been missed. PR's public teamplay is unparalleled, and it is; even the worst servers have 50% of it's players following squad leaders and the best servers have near 100% plus squad joining reqs and strict admins, but it relies entirely on one obvious and basic tool. BF2's voip is clear, crisp and seldom causes problems even with players from the other side of the world. ARMA's voip, while not a total loss, just doesn't cut the mustard.

Without BF2 voip PR would not exist. If you play your first game of PR, like it and want to play it seriously but don't own a mic, you buy one within the week. Comms are that important.

Without a better in-built voip you could model PR perfectly on ARMA2, exceed it in almost every aspect, but in my opinion the vast majority of players still wouldn't buy into the tight single squad ethic that PR relies on to raise it above the "TDM with flags and tickets" type game because of frustrations in communication.

I'd still play it though :) I never really got into ofp adverserial maps outside of afew "fun" DM maps and the odd game of warfare and CTI. However, I do think a good ARMA mission designer could make some great team vs team maps with some of the ideas from PR. I also think that it's inevitable that someone will try ...

[wormeaten 0]

Without BF2 voip PR would not exist. If you play your first game of PR, like it and want to play it seriously but don't own a mic, you buy one within the week. Comms are that important.

Without a better in-built voip you could model PR perfectly on ARMA2, exceed it in almost every aspect, but in my opinion the vast majority of players still wouldn't buy into the tight single squad ethic that PR relies on to raise it above the "TDM with flags and tickets" type game because of frustrations in communication.

ArmA have better in built voip system than PR, better graphic, more complex movement, more weapons, real ballistic (something what PR DEV steel just dreaming), huge map possibilities are much much better then in PR but ArmA have one big disadvantage.

ArmA don’t have PR!

Right now we have several scripts in ArmA community which simulating some PR features but everyone is separately. If we are established mod team and bring all that people in one place to work together we could have better mod than PR is now even all that what they wish to do in PR2 in about 2 month.

PR2 is going commercially and if everything goes smoothly as they plan it will be in public for at least 2 years.

So what are we waiting for? :confused:

We can have PR2 right now. :cool:

[KorJax 10]

Also the problem with ArmA is that the multiplayer doesn't really have a structure to it, while in PR (and most other multiplayer games) it does. While you might think this offers "freedom" in a gameplay and virtual space scenario it just castrates what is possible.

If ArmA2 has a system where it was clear and easy to see what objectives are key, if you could clearly see possible loadouts, spawning, what is going on, and exactly how the game mode you are playing on works, if you could clearly understand and easily get into a squad/squad system without having to jump into 100 hoops to do so... the game would be much much much better. Right now it just feels broken, and dare I say like something that would be in an alpha build of the game.

To me it almost feels like BI are thinking as a military guy who knows nothing about design and assumes that everyone who uses the sim will know how everything works from the get go and that they will always know what to do... instead of thinking as designers and trying to find the best way to get a player in the game and work as an asset.

[An Fiach 10]

I think it is more a matter of what servers you join rather than a difference in the game. I think if you like PR over ArmA it is likely an issue of preferring the limited environment and fewer players to deal with which gives it a cozier feel and even need less coordination with the simpler level design.

[rocksy 11]

Arma2 blows everything out of the water combat wise. PR and even arma doesn't come close in my eyes.

and with some carefully crafted mods, it's going to be amazing.

Sightadjustment and ballistics need porting over from arma.

Some of the cool weather mods, sound tweak here and there with some better voices.

Sharing of ammo between squad members.

Injuring of Opfor to be captured for intel scores and the like.

[wormeaten 0]

Also the problem with ArmA is that the multiplayer doesn't really have a structure to it, while in PR (and most other multiplayer games) it does. While you might think this offers "freedom" in a gameplay and virtual space scenario it just castrates what is possible.

If ArmA2 has a system where it was clear and easy to see what objectives are key, if you could clearly see possible loadouts, spawning, what is going on, and exactly how the game mode you are playing on works, if you could clearly understand and easily get into a squad/squad system without having to jump into 100 hoops to do so... the game would be much much much better. Right now it just feels broken, and dare I say like something that would be in an alpha build of the game.

To me it almost feels like BI are thinking as a military guy who knows nothing about design and assumes that everyone who uses the sim will know how everything works from the get go and that they will always know what to do... instead of thinking as designers and trying to find the best way to get a player in the game and work as an asset.

As I say it before almost all that feature exist in some maps but they are not merged to create one good mod all are out there individually we need to unite efforts to create standard mod like PR.

Arma2 blows everything out of the water combat wise. PR and even arma doesn't come close in my eyes.

and with some carefully crafted mods, it's going to be amazing.

Sightadjustment and ballistics need porting over from arma.

Some of the cool weather mods, sound tweak here and there with some better voices.

Sharing of ammo between squad members.

Injuring of Opfor to be captured for intel scores and the like.

True but PR is steel more payable and user friendly. We need to do something to use this possibility.

ArmA2 right now just offering possibilities not solutions.

[CplBlakeman 10]

The good thing is that with the modifiable content of Arma 2 someone could easily make a new type of warfare mode that is more in line with the ease of use of PR. Tickets and limited capture 'flags' are well within the possibility of Arma 2s engine.

[Taciturnus 10]

Anybody interested in squad based combat or has doubts about how Arma1 or Arma2 plays just fire up youtube and search for shacktac or shack tactical or GOL and go from there. The gameplay is unique and all its own.

As far as I'm concerned Arma2 is best played with a serious squad who enjoys working together and having fun. So many people dismiss Arma1/2 because it doesn't play like CoD4 or MW2 or whatever. That's a good thing, imo.

[doomguy64 10]

Arma2 blows everything out of the water combat wise. PR and even arma doesn't come close in my eyes..

Don’t mean to be an ass but have you played PR? PR is well established within the modding community not because it’s some mod living off the bf2 engine or won awards from moddb but because its defined itself through its features and a strong community. PR is a well off online multiplayer from the get go, its easy to get into, join a squad and have a mic and your set. No need to join a clan, organize teamspeak or download mods.

As for ArmA 2 the online isn’t the greatest but i'd imagine it would be once ACE is up and running for ArmA 2 and community made mods.

Both are great online mil sim games but trying to establish which is better than the other is pointless. Both are unique and have potential to do great things.

Edited June 27, 2009 by doomguy64
typo

[Bulldogs 10]

I love Project Reality, except for the fact that it doesn't have a strong following in Australia (kinda does, but you have to be on at the right time to get into the one server), and whenever I go on the US servers with people I don't know they usually vote for me to be kicked off the server or they'll just ignore me til I go away, that said I still love Project Reality.

But in my personal opinion, it doesn't come close to Arma 2.

[KorJax 10]

Anybody interested in squad based combat or has doubts about how Arma1 or Arma2 plays just fire up youtube and search for shacktac or shack tactical or GOL and go from there. The gameplay is unique and all its own.

As far as I'm concerned Arma2 is best played with a serious squad who enjoys working together and having fun. So many people dismiss Arma1/2 because it doesn't play like CoD4 or MW2 or whatever. That's a good thing, imo.

But you could say that about any game.

Hell google Halo 3 world champion matches and you get exactly what you say, even though Halo 3 wasn't a game designed around strong team coordination, it was just a side-benefit.

ArmA2's mulitplayer will impress me when they can enforce squad based combat and/or a modest level of teamwork twoards a common goal in a public environment, not something that's exclusive to clans. Because every game in exsistance has squad-style gameplay in clans (atleast, the good ones).

[LMLM 10]

Okay I've played a lot of PR and a decent amount (but not a lot) of ArmA1 and have had ArmA 2 a full day and have played it about 8 hours so far online.

Here is my comparison of PR vs A2 (PR using the BF2 engine)

PR seems to have better net code (less lag/jerky movement/etc)

PR is less visually rich but the performance is much, much better

PR has much better urban environments

PR's smaller maps (2k x 2k) work well for PvP

PR is much more a PvP game while A2 is much more a PvE experience.

PR has a much easier to use interface at the cost of depth

PR maps are more varied on the small scale which adds to its gameplay style

PR has much more map variety because it has different map themes from different places in the world

A2 doesn't have an insurgency mode so well designed as PR as far as I know

A2 obviously has far more variety of weapons and more vehicle types

A2 has much better aerial game

A2 is far more moddable and flexible than PR or BF2

A2 has more bugs

A2 has an inventory system

A2 lets you acquire AI team mates, PR doesn't

DICE seems to have abandoned the spirit of the BF2 engine, while BiS has truly kept in the spirit of A1 with A2 and built a lot on it.

I think that the games don't compete directly. PR is more playable for the mainstream while A1/A2 are more geared for hardcore warfare simulation players. Both games have depth and a learning curve but PR pales in comparison on that front.

PR is a more focused experience. A2 offers a huge or even vast experience but the cost is that some of the specifics don't succeed as well as PR.

[Bulldogs 10]

I agree with most of that, especially the PvE aspect. I think that's the selling point of Arma 1 & 2 over PR, the PvE, while PR has a more robust PvP due to accessibility. I'm hoping once more players work their way in there's be a strong online A2 community with expect pilots and the lot.

[synch_c 10]

ArmA have better in built voip system than PR

Thats an outrageous statement. It'd be better if it actually worked. BF2 voip is always clear and you never have to ask anyone to repeat themselves, even when they are on different continents. In a week of playing ARMA2 I've already given up on the vop. No noticable progress from ARMA at all. It isn't clear even when the transmission is 100% which is, in my experience, extremely rare. With some dev love and volume controls I think it could be better as the different channels is a winning idea but as it is it's, at best, white noise.

[Bulldogs 10]

I honestly can't comment on the Arma VoIP 'cause I haven't tested it, but the BF2 VoIP is one of the worst I've had the pleasure of using, then again, I always stick to using Teamspeak or Ventrilo

[hoak 0]

Comparing PRM to ArmA II is really not fair; PRM is a mod, with one track or kind of PvP game-play, where as ArmA II is a total realism game, tool set, and virtual world. One could literally clone all the important elements of PRM into ArmA II and get virtually identical game-play if that's what was wanted. But, as good as some aspects of PRM are (when it's at it's best), a lot of it is built horribly awkward work-arounds and rules due to BF2 scripting limitations.

In PRM you have obtuse things like players spawning in the middle of the world magically, you might wait for some kind of vehicle respawn clock, or weapon rules opening to avail itself -- in ArmA II, you HALO back in or insert realistically, if your vehicles get blown up you have to call for a real airdrop, all the weapons you have are what you're carrying or what you can find in the nearest Armory or base.

ArmA II's RV engine is a much more granular, to-scale, and from the Gamer and Modder's perspective more capable and realistic engine then Refractor 2... Though I'd very much like to see a mod for ArmA II that takes some inspiration from some of PRM's better games, I'd rather not see the duds repeated anywhere...

:b:

[wormeaten 0]

Thats an outrageous statement. It'd be better if it actually worked. BF2 voip is always clear and you never have to ask anyone to repeat themselves, even when they are on different continents. In a week of playing ARMA2 I've already given up on the vop. No noticable progress from ARMA at all. It isn't clear even when the transmission is 100% which is, in my experience, extremely rare. With some dev love and volume controls I think it could be better as the different channels is a winning idea but as it is it's, at best, white noise.

ArmA2 have 6 in build separate channels which work perfectly since ArmA1 and how many channels have BF2?

I'm playing PR from its beginning and was participating in first 5 campaigns of PRT so I know exactly how BF2 PR is functioning and when playing it with my friends we using TS because BF2 voip is crap.

Problems with communication are mostly because of individual’s bad hardware or people not using it at all what is shame because good communication is base of good team play.

Next time don’t rush too much with wrong conclusion.

Here we are not comparing ArmA with PR we are talking about do we need something like PR on ArmA engine or not and we are not discussing who is better or comparing PvP with Coop.

Arma is simply best game with coop mod on internet and that’s fact and out of discussion but other fact is that ArmA don’t have good PvP mod and that is what we discussing here.

When we create PR for ArmA then and only then we will comparing PR BF2 with PR ArmA.