Dick Blonov

Realism ?

I never use 3rd person view, and I've never used the death cam, or any exploit/engine limitations, even if I knew about many of them.

DB

__________________
|TG-6th|Blonov

Ferris Bueller

I think asch has it pegged. I get the impression that Root isnt talking about the game/engine/limitations but more about how you play it. For example:
Some people like the run-and-gun feel of playing, more vanilla/cs-esque where you dont use real-world tactics and strategy in planning and executing your operations. Then there are those who prefer the immersion feel of having a coordinated squad, using realistic formations and movement to contact proceedures, as well as other key traits that make it seem more like a simulation than just a free-for-all.

__________________
|TG-6th|Ferris Bueller

John CANavar

Hello Root,

We 1stMIP members love to play games in a realistic way, focusing on small-unit tactics and procedures. Balanced realism adds new dimensions and immersion into this otherwise pretty simple (for the lack of a better word) activity. Without knowing more about your project it is hard to say something but for now, all I can say is I am very interested to hear more about it.

EDIT: I will pick realism is very important but it is not the only thing I look for in a game/mod.

Morganan

I voted no simply based on personal experience in attempting to bring "real world" tactics to games.

It takes so much practice and training (just like in real life) to do it properly that it takes the "game" out of the game.

Do I love to attempt to bring realistic strategies and tactics to this genre of games? Absolutely. Am I willing any longer to attempt to put in the time and effort to do anything more then half-measures? no. To bring a real level of realism to these types of games (not BF-specific, but the type of game's that leave room for strategic and tactical thinking/playing) takes a level of commitment that goes above and beyond what one should do for a leisure activity for not just 1 person, but an entire team. Scrimming 4 nights a week 2 scrim's/night, 2 nights of matches a week on top of the scrim schedule made the whole experience feel less like a game, and more like a job. If I am picking up a second job, it will be one that pays me money when I go to work, not one that costs money to work at.

Sam Hoy

I'm a realism player!
Sometimes I find myself clenching the edge of my monitor like its a hand grip in the MH-6 while flying, but that might be entriely different

I like to have fun, but its extremely satisfying when my teammates take things seriously and employ real strategy and emotion and preparation in game.

aculle01

If I am critically wounded I will continue to talk because I am still alive. however, as soon as I get the "You have been killed" message I will not give any information on the enemy's position.

Recently I have decided not to switch my kit with a downed medic's.

My AT rockets are for vehicles and clearing rooms/bunkers.

The GL is a secondary weapon and I will only use it to clear a defensive position. I will not use it in place of my rifle when engaging hostiles one on one.

__________________
"I once thought I had mono for an entire year. It turned out I was just really bored."

Jeepo_SAS

Hmmmm, i like a balanced squad, with a balanced plan of action on a given map, but then im not against twitch play either!Sometimes i like it for being arcadey!

But although maybe not a lot of you in PR will know what im talking about, im loving the thought of playing ArmA, with the ACE mod when it is finished......super real, if you die, you may not see action for maybe 10 mins, or more!So much on the line, so intense, having to rely on your squad mates.....has to be planned properly....wow......cant wait!!!

__________________
|TG-22nd|Jeepo

Braidedheadman

I enjoy the "Realism" of interacting with my squad mates in simulated environments. That for me is as realistic as I need it to be within the framework of any given game. When games start to impose artificial limitations in a simulated environment and attempt to call it "reality", I start to have less fun overall.

For instance, and I realize that this is not about PRM per se but I believe I've addressed the topic in its general sense above, the foot soldier to vehicle interaction in PRM is fine. Vehicle to Vehicle interaction however, is not. All the vehicles since vBF2 have lacked the (simulated) electronic target detection, acquisition, tracking, and elimination suites that one would expect to find on their real life counterparts. Electronic countermeasures are another thing that is missing from vBF2 vehicles and their modded siblings. And yet, I accept this in vBF2 as part of its set of limitations to make the game as fun for all as possible.

The problem arises when, through modification, the vehicles are further limited in terms of how they acquire and engage OPFOR vehicles (ie: through no external cams, limited FOV arcs using "mouse look", etc.), all in the name of "a more realistic simulation", without providing "realistic" substitutes for the systems being removed (ie: mirrors for drivers in place of external cams and limited FOV arcs, short range radar for aircraft and other assault vehicles, etc.).

Where is the realism in flying an aircraft, with no radar, no mirrors, and whose only means to look over the pilot’s shoulder to check one's six (for those without fancy joysticks) means losing control of the aircraft while one diverts mouse input to direct the "mouse look" FOV?

Where is the realism for the tank driver whose only source of information; whose only means of perceiving the world around him is what he can see directly ahead through a tiny view port?

I don't claim to be an expert, but I'm no fool either to believe that operators of vehicles like these, in reality, rely solely on their own keen eyesight to make decisions when under fire on the battlefield. I expect that they would have a vast array of battlefield information systems at their disposal with which to make these combat decisions. I further contend that games that seek to simulate realistic environments, as PRM has done, need to model the whole package and not just impose vulnerabilities that they think might make their game "feel more realistic".

I have the very real impression that; based upon the absence of realistically modeled vehicles, coupled with their long respawn times, that PR itself is modeled for and by those who prefer a "realistic Infantry Only" experience. In that regard, PR has done extremely well for itself on the whole. But the vehicle aspects of the game are sorely lacking. They feel more vulnerable and weaker than their counterparts in other BF2 flavors do - due strictly to the limitations placed upon drivers and pilots over and above what core BF2 technology already places upon them.

The bottom line for me, and in concluding me remarks to the topic of this thread, I enjoy "realism" in the games that I play and I especially enjoy "realistic" interactions with the people I game with. But unless the game itself is going to model everything as realistically as possible, without bias to one group or aspect or another - or has at least hidden that bias in such a way that it is undetectable to me - I'm not likely to enjoy much of what it has to offer. If that cannot be done, I prefer gameplay over realism any day of the week.

I would have preferred a second option somewhere in between as well but, given the slant of my argument, I voted no.

__________________

Steiner

I would say that I play realistic depending on the situation, and the squad that I am in. If the squad (infantry) are going with proper tactics and movement, I naturally fall in and it is usually a blast. In other cases, tactics and such can be a vaste of time since not all players know real tactics in terms of movements, squad-positioning in defence and offence etc.

But when Im in a tank, I always go the realistic way with movements, flanking, proper use of smoke and extractions etc. I always tend to seek up freindly armour and work along side with them, and the advantage with armour is that the person driving around in the other tank doesn´t really have to be aware of tank-tactics as long as I work "around" him/her with flanking movements or in a line or collumn formation.

__________________
|TG-6th|Steiner

Can't work out how to have several different images [such as banners and ribbons] in the signature, so I will drop that project for now...




"-He has a wife, you know. Do you know what she's called? 'Incontinentia'... Incontinentia Buttocks."

7ShadesOSin

I like being able to utilise real-world tactics in games, and playing games where the engine gives you the ability to do so (ie, BF2 - we've had discussions before on playing out extractions for stranded players etc - I love that kind of stuff).

SWAT 4 - I used to play with a clan that played in a way that was about as real as it gets. Loved it. Great game for it too...

And I'm loving getting serious with PR at the moment.

Definitely realism for me.

__________________
7Shades

How sweet, thought lifeless, yet with life to lie,
And, without dying, O how sweet to die!
- from Thomas Warton's "Ode to Sleep"

Donagel

Having only 2 choices makes it difficult. I went with "not as important", as the gray area of that statement is better than the gray area of the other. Realism is a extremely important factor, but gameplay is important as well.

The question you have to ask is how much gameplay are you willing to sacrifice for realism?

Realism_______________Gameplay
Die once----------------respawn
spawn on SL/rp---------spawn on edge of map
Supply depots----------Universal Ammo Packs
off map artillery---------destroyable artillery
no blue dots------------have some idea where your squad is
M.A.S.H.---------------medic revive.

Root

Yup. I'll put my hands up on that. As I've already hinted, I've got a specific purpose behind creating this poll, but I wanted to get my data "raw". Everyone should go with the option they think best for now. When the not-so-realism players find out the purpose of the poll, they may well be interested and they'll be more than welcome.

Thanks to everyone who's voted so far and for all the feedback.

__________________

[EDF]_eflight

I have similar thoughts to Braidedheadman.

At some point you need to define realism. Is it just the accuracy of the machine guns or is it the complete combat system.

How about for realism the US side has full radio communications but the other side loses thiers or it only works half the time. Since to be realisitic we have to account for initial capbility, logisitics and jamming by the enemy.

How about the gun on the US tank stays stable while moving but the other side is not stable while moving. go read about Desert Storm 1 to see why the M1 Abrams kicked butt.

How about the US jets start when entered but half the time the enemy jets dont start. Jets are not cheap to maintain. go take a look at what happens to most counties that buy fighters and then cant maintain them.

On the other side of the coin , show me the soilder than can look inside his eyepiece to see where Every other piece of equipment or personnel is located. The mini-map has to be the MOST unrealistic part of the game.

So the first challange is to define "Realisitic".

Jeepo_SAS

hmmm, i remember the debate about whether they should get rid of the mini map in 0.6!That would kill, but be very interesting!

__________________
|TG-22nd|Jeepo

Root

Try this :

__________________