Root

I'm just curious to know how many of you are particularly interested in the realism aspect of gaming. Well actually it's not just curiosity, I have something cooking in the lab and I want to gauge interest levels.

__________________

sgt fetterman

I wish it was a tad more real like, but there is only so much you can do with a game.
Over all I like it.

Root

I think that the playerbase can do more.

__________________

snooggums

I voted not so important because fairness between sides and playability outweigh total realism. Some aspects of 'reality' like only carrying so many weapons, no health bar, making uncappables safe zones making healing less accessible and air vehicles taking a minute to warm up benefit game play. Kits do realism without going overboard.

Too much realism would be taking 3 minutes to switch kits (how fast can you switch out body armor, holsters and belts?), no spawning on APCs (how many guys can really come out of that clown car?), no rally points, a finite number of troops for the round, no air drops, no vehicle re spawns, no ammo kits or crates and so on. I prefer game play that mimics realism without being realism so that the game can still be enjoyable.

I think the current rules have a good balance at this time. Does this poll apply to any proposed changes?

IRS_Agent

I believe that any actual real feel is difficult to maintain simply because a game is a game, and it must have an entertaining aspect. Realism is an all or nothing type thing, and few developers or mod teams are willing to go all out on realism because it's just not as fun to most people. Furthermore, gameplay and TOTAL realism are incompatible, so you can't have an inbetween. Especially with the BF2 engine, we are limited in what we can do, and even if our rules were more strict we still couldn't achieve a level of realism that is fun. If the realism is hardcore enough, it is VERY fun; however, the only current game i can think of that is realistic tot he point of being fun would be ArmA. So overall, it's irrelevant whether you value realism because realism as we know it in games isn't realism.

__________________
The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving.



I
#83 of 213 things you cannot do in the army.
83. Must not start any SITREP (Situation Report) with "I recently had an experience I just had to write you about...."

Root

It doesn't apply to anything the BF admin team is doing, and isn't related to the rules. It's about who the people are who enjoy the getting neck-deep in the simulation aspect of gaming. It's not even entirely PR-related, but this is my starting point.

__________________

Plan6

I agree with snooggums. Realism can never come at the price of gameplay. Removing the medics ability to rez people would be more realistic, but would not add anything to the gameplay. I like the level the way it is right now. My only problem is with insta-proning and 203 spamming. Beyond that I like things the way they are.

Root

They're all very valid points about PR, but this poll isn't entirely PR-related. I'm more interested in establishing which PR players are serious about the simulation aspect of their gaming.

__________________

Grunt 70

I didn't vote because I was looking for an option between the two.

Realism is very important to me in various titles but there are a host of other gameplay issues that are important too. I felt the two options listed painted me into a corner that I didn't belong in.

eg...I love hitting eagles and birdies at Pebble Beach in a Tiger Woods EA Golf Game...but that's highly unrealistic...

But in a game like PR...I value very highly a realistic approach to the game by all the players involved...

__________________
|TG-22nd|Grunt



"When force is necessary, it must be applied boldly, decisively, and completely. But one must know the limitations of force; one must know when to blend force with maneuver" - Leon Trotsky

snooggums

I will say that the 'realism' difference between PR and regular or ever POE BF is a great step forward, I love the lack of a health bar, I love not being able to ID friend or foe at a distance easily, and I love the restrictions that are in the TG rules, I just think sometimes the 'realism' discussions we get are silly when they would be a detriment to playing.

Basically I like a good game with as realistic as it can get without being annoying, and I think even PR can get a little more 'realistic' without being bad. An example of 'realism' that is non-PR is HCR or Hard Core Rules for Nevewinter Nights. Basically some people find it enjoyable to have to make your computer character eat so often, find water so often, keep track of every item of clothing etc because it is more realistic. It is, but to the detriment of game play. I'm interested in realism, but I do not put it above everything else.

ednos

Go with the second one. That's the aim of the poll.

__________________

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ~ Bertrand Russell
I have a tendency to key out three or four things and then let them battle for supremacy while I key, so there's a lot of backspacing as potential statements are slaughtered and eaten by the victors. ~ Magna Centipede

Gahlas

I agree with Grunt that there needs to be another option. I love realism but I also love great gameplay. Tacmod was a fantastic balance between the two, the finest I think BF2 can get. Project Reality sacrifices too much gameplay to achieve realism in my opinion. Somethings have to be left in to make a game playable, even if it does sacrifice the "Cool, this is almost real" feel.

Root

I really think people are getting too hung up on relating my poll to PR specifically. I'm trying to establish who wants that "Cool, this is almost real" feel and who prioritises other issues, regardless of what game they're playing.

__________________

J.Agnew7

I Havnt player in a while but i really enjoyed realism

asch

I think what root is getting at is how people play the game. Some players like to get immersed in the game by playing it like a simulation. Squads break down into fire-teams, use realistic tactics and squad maneuvers to move around the map. Even get into more realistic protocols. It's not necessarily about the features of the game, but how you play it.

__________________
| My Maps

Gaming Videos by Tactical Gamers

Fear the Frog! | Kill the Frog! | An Inconvenient Truth

"Support game play in a near-simulation environment. Where the focus of play would not be solely on doing what it takes to win, but doing so utilizing real-world combat strategy and tactics rather than leveraging exploits provided to players by the design of the game engine, regardless of the level of advantage, if any, it gives over the opposing team." -- Tactical Gamer Primer