I thought you guys might enjoy this

[Bluedrake42]

I kind wrote a massive essay on why project reality is so awesome on Operation Flashpoint's Forum haha

Here's the Link to my forum thread: Operation Flashpoint Should Learn From Project Reality - Codemasters Forums

Here's the main parts of my essays.
This is all what I posted on the thread, the first section is my initial essay, then I offer an even more intricate essay in response to a member's question.

Project Reality : Realistic Gaming Redefined - https://www.realitymod.com/
YouTube - Project Reality: BF2 Mod v0.95 Trailer - YouTube - Project Reality: BF2 Mod v0.95 Trailer - HD

Like I said on their facebook page, but I figured I'd be heard more here.

Project Reality is probably the best example of a successful tactical realism game (well mod) so far. ArmA 2 puts too much focus on role play, and not enough on gameplay, Dragon Rising does the exact opposite (that's that arcade feel everyone complains about). What a good tactical realism game needs is a good balance between the two, and I think Project Reality is a really good example of that balance.

Its kind of sad really how close Dragon Rising was to hitting the mark. I feel like Red River is taking a huge amount of steps back for no reason. Although, yeah if they feel they need to scale back for production reasons... then I guess I can't complain about that. But Operation Flashpoint isn't meant to be played as a Call of Duty game. Its meant to give a visceral and a truly open world experience, with a game where the entire war can be moved by a single player. And this isn't nearly as difficult to accomplish as people seem to think, its more about developing a clever form of Gameplay then massive amounts of pretty visuals and entities. The Island War map for Dragon Rising was a good example of that.

Here's some good and bad things about Operation Flashpoint DR:

We're not gonna talk about multiplayer, I think Codemasters can get that straightened out without feedback.

In Dragon Rising Field of View was a big deal, because players want to be able to see their own equipment, and they want to feel like they're in the vehicle they're piloting/driving. I know Red River won't have things like Helicopters to pilot and such, but even besides that, its an important concept even for infantry and small vehicles such as Humvees. Also Vehicle menus and huds were rather lackluster. Also, being locked into ironsights in a vehicle gunner position is a really bad idea, and usually a fatal one.

The AI in Dragon Rising was AMAZING. Now I know a lot of people complained about a few small things, such as the medic being a FAIL every so often and some other small things. But over all with that kind of scale. It was GREAT. Better then any AI I've ever seen in any other Tactical game. It gave you good challenging amounts of bots to fight against without feeling like you're just mowing down a turkey shoot. The AI in DR was hands down one of the best aspects of the game. The command Wheel was also great, but obviously being able to move while giving orders is a must.

A lot of the first person player animations were terrible. Especially Healing. I know its kind of far fetched, but Far Cry 2 did a great job in that. Player animations massively multiply player immersion. Obviously you don't need anything as in depth as Far Cry 2, but its a good direction to understand.

Sound was good... needs to be better. Lots of the explosions were good and I'm happy DR took into account sound delay, but generally the weapons were very under powering. Guns are LOUD, and sometimes it takes more then just amping up the levels to achieve that effect. There are many very specific sound effects that come from firing loud weapons. Especially in different environments. But things like cracks, echos and ringing didn't really exist in Dragon Rising. If its loud, it needs to sound loud, not just be loud relatively.

That's all I've got right now. Time to go study for my test today!



Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeeDog

Um, how exactly does PR find this balance? You didn't specify



I will gladly specify. there are three aspects that define a good tactical game. (btw don't think that if I mention something here, I'm suggesting OFDR didn't have it) (Also forgive my occasional use of CAPS, since there's no bold or Italic options I see)

- Authenticity: the function, sound, and look of all Weapons, Vehicles, Terrain etc.

- Player Engagement: Objectives, AI interaction, etc. (Generally just having something to do, and feeling like you have a significant impact on the game world)

- Interface: Huds, Key Commands, etc. (Generally the Ease of Use and Learning Curve)

Project Reality focuses on having authentic weapons and vehicles that all adhere to the laws of physics and the real world. This is important since creating a tactical game is essentially just modeling after something that already exists... war, and since war is already balanced within itself, if its modeled correctly, then things like balancing and gameplay won't be an issue. Also authenticity is what governs a player's immersion. (so things like Field of View and Freelooking would go in this category)

Next up is Player Engagement
Player engagement has three very important aspects,

1. Being Involved/Engaged

2. Having a Purpose (or Goal)

3. Having an Impact on the Gameworld

Being constantly Involved or Engaged is important, but not anywhere near as important as always having an overarching Purpose or Goal. The player always wants to feel like he's working TOWARDS something, not just killing time. A scripted campaign can halfway satisfy this aspect, but not nearly as much as having an open player driven world. An open, player driven world will fully satisfy an even greater aspect of player engagement which is having a BELIEVABLE IMPACT on the world in which he/she is playing. Also this will allow near-infinite re-playability, which is always something valued by players.

Project Reality accomplishes this in a clever way. It gives a team a variety of dynamic objectives to accomplish, which in a tactical atmosphere branch off into even more tasks for each individual player to pursue. This also means, that since the entire map is filled with opponents, whatever task the individual player decides to pursue, he will face a decent amount of opposition at any point during his endeavor.

This means that Project Reality effectively fulfills each aspect of engaging the player: - The player will constantly be engaged in fighting the enemy, and never grow disinterested - The player will always have a purpose driving him forward, which keeps him playing - The player will have a significant impact on the game if he completes his Goal All three of these aspects give the player enjoyment, and keeps him playing the game.

Last but certainly not least is the Interface.

The interface of a game can often make or break its success. Having a poor and clumsy interface will hinder it unplayable even if it sports the most authentic gameworld and most engaging gameplay. Keep it simple, but allow it to be effectively used so the player can apply it in a variety of ways. Also make sure the vehicle interaction menus are streamlined and intuitive. Its more important to have a intuitive and functional vehicle menu then trying to render every imaginable aspect of that particular vehicle's control scheme accessible. Pick the important functions, and if the menu starts getting too cluttered, then leave the less important ones out (until you can figure out a way to implement them properly).

Project Reality offers its players an easy to navigate class selection system, and also a variety of HUDs and communication/interaction menus that streamline the gameplay process. Probably the biggest success in Project Reality's Interface scheme is its creative and effective use of Battlefield 2's Command wheel. It allows you to perform a plethora of tasks all while retaining a familiar and easy-to-use feel. These two things are some of the token characteristics that make the game happily accessible and fun to play.

If you follow these three points a positive byproduct will also occur that will strengthen the lasting lifetime of your game: Camaraderie. In a multiplayer atmosphere the stress and demanding strategy needed to achieve victory will force players to develop intricate friendships with their teammates. This is one of the main reasons that tactical gamers enjoy tactical games, and also why they always come back to play them so frequently. So things such as VOIP and ways to implement it (local in-game communication, squad chat, etc.) should not be overlooked. Since not only does it allow a team to play and coordinate together better, but also gives them a way to build friendships with their teammates. (and local in-game communication can also significantly help build immersion.)

Other things such as whether a tactical game should have a class system or not is entirely up to the developer, since those kind of things don't effect the above mentioned aspects of a good tactical title.