Realism vs Fun, let's just get this over with.

[WarGimp]

I'm still seeing so many threads that are talking about how this or that element of BF2 sucks 'cause it isn't realistic. I want to present to you that realism does NOT mean fun... and that fun is the most important aspect of a GAME!

For example, the M95 (hooooo boy).
Now realisticly not only should a single hit for a .50 cal sniper rifle be a one should kill, but is should friggen blow ya in half! I mean, they've got rounds for those things that can punch holes in tanks!
But if they were implemented "realisticly", how much fun would that be? How annoying would it be to get blown into distinctly spereate chunks every time you poked your head out of cover? Sure, it would be a hoot for the snipers, but MAN that would be a pain for everyone else!

Then on the flipside, there's times when implementing realism helps increase fun. A possible example is a minimum arming rang for the 'nade launcher. In real life, those suckers need some room to arm. This makes a handy excuse to curb "noob toobing", which does carry the potential to ruin fun.

Then there's the unrealistic aspects that no-one ever seems to question. Since when, in real life, do shock paddels cure bullet wounds? For that matter, how does stepping on a medic bag restore lost blood, close wounds, and put you back into fighting form despite the fact that it takes MONTHS to heal from a gunshot?

SO... I wanna urge people to start thinking in terms of FUN rather than realistic. If you can think of a case where realism would ADD to the fun (for everyone, not just your favorite class) in a clear and logical way, go for it. If you're trying to argue realism just for the sake of realism... well, you lose by default.

[Ramseus]

Re: Realism vs Fun, let's just get this over with.

And the BF series has always been an ARCADE(!!!) series, so people who expect realism should have their heads examined.

[Devil_Dog-9]

Re: Realism vs Fun, let's just get this over with.

I'm still seeing so many threads that are talking about how this or that element of BF2 sucks 'cause it isn't realistic. I want to present to you that realism does NOT mean fun... and that fun is the most important aspect of a GAME!

For example, the M95 (hooooo boy).
Now realisticly not only should a single hit for a .50 cal sniper rifle be a one should kill, but is should friggen blow ya in half! I mean, they've got rounds for those things that can punch holes in tanks!
But if they were implemented "realisticly", how much fun would that be? How annoying would it be to get blown into distinctly spereate chunks every time you poked your head out of cover? Sure, it would be a hoot for the snipers, but MAN that would be a pain for everyone else!

Then on the flipside, there's times when implementing realism helps increase fun. A possible example is a minimum arming rang for the 'nade launcher. In real life, those suckers need some room to arm. This makes a handy excuse to curb "noob toobing", which does carry the potential to ruin fun.

Then there's the unrealistic aspects that no-one ever seems to question. Since when, in real life, do shock paddels cure bullet wounds? For that matter, how does stepping on a medic bag restore lost blood, close wounds, and put you back into fighting form despite the fact that it takes MONTHS to heal from a gunshot?

SO... I wanna urge people to start thinking in terms of FUN rather than realistic. If you can think of a case where realism would ADD to the fun (for everyone, not just your favorite class) in a clear and logical way, go for it. If you're trying to argue realism just for the sake of realism... well, you lose by default.

Your right there is a line that has to be walked for the average gamer...but EA most of the time has crossed that line into pure stupidity.

The M95 is a good example...Should it be one shot one kill? Well given how innacurate it is right now...why not? "Everyone will be sniping" Not true every heard of tanks and APC? and Snipers alone can't Cap a spawn point...or defend it very well...

The one GOOD thing I have to Give to EA is the Medic...I would keep that feature nomatter how real the game gets...just allows the game to be more fun IMO.

[imported_bigpappa]

Re: Realism vs Fun, let's just get this over with.

someone made a realism mod for DC and no one played it, i wonder why....

[imported_Animalmother]

Re: Realism vs Fun, let's just get this over with.

fun doesnt mean arcade. Come on, realism can be fun. Not the 1 hit kills and runnng slower than ants, but good realism like really powerfull tanks, laser guided bombs, stuff like that.

[Paas]

Re: Realism vs Fun, let's just get this over with.

I'm still seeing so many threads that are talking about how this or that element of BF2 sucks 'cause it isn't realistic. I want to present to you that realism does NOT mean fun... and that fun is the most important aspect of a GAME!

For example, the M95 (hooooo boy).
Now realisticly not only should a single hit for a .50 cal sniper rifle be a one should kill, but is should friggen blow ya in half! I mean, they've got rounds for those things that can punch holes in tanks!
But if they were implemented "realisticly", how much fun would that be? How annoying would it be to get blown into distinctly spereate chunks every time you poked your head out of cover? Sure, it would be a hoot for the snipers, but MAN that would be a pain for everyone else!

Then on the flipside, there's times when implementing realism helps increase fun. A possible example is a minimum arming rang for the 'nade launcher. In real life, those suckers need some room to arm. This makes a handy excuse to curb "noob toobing", which does carry the potential to ruin fun.

Then there's the unrealistic aspects that no-one ever seems to question. Since when, in real life, do shock paddels cure bullet wounds? For that matter, how does stepping on a medic bag restore lost blood, close wounds, and put you back into fighting form despite the fact that it takes MONTHS to heal from a gunshot?

SO... I wanna urge people to start thinking in terms of FUN rather than realistic. If you can think of a case where realism would ADD to the fun (for everyone, not just your favorite class) in a clear and logical way, go for it. If you're trying to argue realism just for the sake of realism... well, you lose by default.

I agree/disagree.

For starters to ME 100% realism, or the pursuit of it, is the most fun.

Sure, it's a game in the end, so some aspects cannot be simulated (Death, Touch, Smell). Yet, I prefer EVERYTHIHNG that can be simulated perfectly be done. Weapon damage, locational damage, movement, actions, tactics. I want it all to be EXTREMELY realistic beccause I PERSONALLY find that to be the most fun. I'm not alone in this, many of the players in mah' niche love realism...

I can think of many cases were realism adds fun. Yet, I'll only list three:

1. In PRMM Mod the weapons are realistically portrayed, and firefights take place in a more logicall and practical fashion. I consider this more fun than vanilla BF2 in which everyone just goes into a jumping frenzy while holding down the trigger.

2. Tanks in PRMM in realistically modeled to some degree. Although it's a Mini-Mod some I'm sure it will get better by final release. On point though, tanks feel more organic in their roles. They are support vehicles. When they are out of their element they tend to be very weak if not helped by infantry. But! When surrounded by a team they are ... well, tanks.

Vanilla basically makes them all dominating fortresses. That are used for assaulting rather than assisting an assault. More Realistic, and I belevie it's more fun.

3. Jet Combat. Jet combat is all about stealth. Truth be told modern weaponary pretty much is all strong enough to take down a fighter. Bomber, whatever. So, it's pretty much about who can sneak up on who better. PRMM shows this much better than Vanilla and is thus.. More fun. To me.

Of course, no everyone feels this way, this is why there are Mods. I don't propose that my fellow realism nuts try and force our views down everyone's throats. Hell, I stand behind the concept of Arcade and Balance in Vanilla. I say, if you want realism, play PRMM. That's what it's there for.

Although, all of you who assume frantic gameplay is the ONLY type of fun there is. You're about as equally closeminded and the extreme realism nuts. I can understand preaching STRICT realism in A.A. But, not Vanilla BF2. Of all things.

{WP}Paas

[666PROTECTOR]

Re: Realism vs Fun, let's just get this over with.

game play - Realism vs Fun DC! is king of the hill

and the saiga12 just love it

[BurnTheWeed]

Re: Realism vs Fun, let's just get this over with.

It's a game, games are meant to be fun. Anytime realism gets in the way of fun... go for fun. Of course that doesn't mean you can't have realistic elements in a game, but you should always go for gameplay.

[ShadowWarrior18D]

Re: Realism vs Fun, let's just get this over with.

If I want realism I will play America's Army. Bf2 wouldnt be enjoyable if it was realistic like AA is.

[Digital-Boy]

Re: Realism vs Fun, let's just get this over with.

I've seen people not only hit consistently with the M95, but also get headshots consistently. There's some trick to using the sniper rifles, and I think it involves not jerking around the crosshairs a lot. I think the less you move the rifle around, the more accurate it is when you take a shot. I think this is to reflect the time it takes to steady the rifle. Also, this probably applies to the other weapons, just not to as great a degree.

On the topic of realism, I like for the game to be relatively realistic (relative to games like Doom, Halo, and the like), but balance and general fun always take precedence.

[Jofaba]

Re: Realism vs Fun, let's just get this over with.

The Merc mods put realism into BF2 and I love them. I don't play them all the time, but the option is nice. I haven't played the Project Reality mod much yet. When I saw this thread I thought it was another rant about telling people to lower their specs if they're having problems. There's like a dozen threads like that...

While I love having the ability to download a mod like Mercs/Project Reality, I kind of prefer a more vanilla game that can be built off of. Still... I'm really disappointed in the lack of real interactivity with the environment. Considering how much of a beast the BF2 engine is, it's a step back from the likes of HL2 and environment destruction.

I really hope that BF3 has true destruction. Buildings that blow up and crumble, and if I run into a tripod weapon, it should knock over. I shouldn't suddenly slam dead in a tank when I hit it! Quite a health hit as well.

One awesome aspect of the merc 6.0 (just downloaded today so forgive me for talking so much about it) is that other weapons can destroy enemy special targets like the artilary and command shack. With some good cover you can destroy all five targets with a tank in one run. Kind of unfair? Yeah.. but a lot more realistic then shooting missles at them and nothing but temporary scorch marks showing up.

[IRONxMortlock]

Re: Realism vs Fun, let's just get this over with.

I agree/disagree.

For starters to ME 100% realism, or the pursuit of it, is the most fun.

Sure, it's a game in the end, so some aspects cannot be simulated (Death, Touch, Smell). Yet, I prefer EVERYTHIHNG that can be simulated perfectly be done. Weapon damage, locational damage, movement, actions, tactics. I want it all to be EXTREMELY realistic beccause I PERSONALLY find that to be the most fun. I'm not alone in this, many of the players in mah' niche love realism...

I can think of many cases were realism adds fun. Yet, I'll only list three:

1. In PRMM Mod the weapons are realistically portrayed, and firefights take place in a more logicall and practical fashion. I consider this more fun than vanilla BF2 in which everyone just goes into a jumping frenzy while holding down the trigger.

2. Tanks in PRMM in realistically modeled to some degree. Although it's a Mini-Mod some I'm sure it will get better by final release. On point though, tanks feel more organic in their roles. They are support vehicles. When they are out of their element they tend to be very weak if not helped by infantry. But! When surrounded by a team they are ... well, tanks.

Vanilla basically makes them all dominating fortresses. That are used for assaulting rather than assisting an assault. More Realistic, and I belevie it's more fun.

3. Jet Combat. Jet combat is all about stealth. Truth be told modern weaponary pretty much is all strong enough to take down a fighter. Bomber, whatever. So, it's pretty much about who can sneak up on who better. PRMM shows this much better than Vanilla and is thus.. More fun. To me.

Of course, no everyone feels this way, this is why there are Mods. I don't propose that my fellow realism nuts try and force our views down everyone's throats. Hell, I stand behind the concept of Arcade and Balance in Vanilla. I say, if you want realism, play PRMM. That's what it's there for.

Although, all of you who assume frantic gameplay is the ONLY type of fun there is. You're about as equally closeminded and the extreme realism nuts. I can understand preaching STRICT realism in A.A. But, not Vanilla BF2. Of all things.

{WP}Paas

Well said Paas, you saved me some time writing that up myself as it was exactly what I was going to say.

I don't want to force people to play with realism and I don't think that vanila BF2 should be altered to be more realistic. This is the purpose of mods. Those of us who like realism should take note that an option for realistic play exists in the forum of PRMM and take advantage of that.

[GLENNYBOY1]

Re: Realism vs Fun, let's just get this over with.

i love bf2 cos its perfectly pitched between the unforgiving realism of AA and the all out daftness of Unreal

[iflabs]

Re: Realism vs Fun, let's just get this over with.

Rainbow Six: Raven Shield was so lame. It was fun for realism, but not fun-fun. You got knocked out with less than 2 bullets and you had to wait until the round ended.

[imported_Fig]

Re: Realism vs Fun, let's just get this over with.

Through years of experience with this series of games, I have learned that the BF2 population is definetely split between those fine the way it is, and those longing for a more realistic game taking advantages of the Battlefield engine.

I am one of the realism advocates. Usually, arcade advocates compare realism and fun as seperate things, where as most those who enjoy realism view them as the same thing.

Also, arcaders usually make very bad comparision and use incomplete examples to prove that realism would make the game worse. A pending example is the thread starters notes on an m95. First of all, the M95 is not used by the United States military, and I'm pretty sure no middle eastern country uses it in wide numbers, same with Chinese. The US uses the M82. The M82 is used very rarely, not issued to standard troops (only top snipers) and is only used to take out light armor (apcs, jeeps, etc), or infantry at extreme (like 1.5 to 2 miles, the distance from one side of Gulf of Oman to the other) ranges.

This rifle cannot be used realistically in BF2, therefore, including it would be unrealistic. BF2 cannot support a gigantic level without fog after 500m.

The best example of fun realism i can think of is FH. Granted, this is a BF2 forum, and I wouldnt expect the new community to have played it. Basically, it took a rather arcady BF42, restructured every kit, weapon, vehicle and map in the game, and made a mod that had (i am not joking) at least 5 times as much content as 42 ever did, and much more varied gamplay. It was not TOTTALY realistic such as ExWW2, it struck a cord of perfect balance between realism and simple fun, where the average player can understand the game and adapt and learn and the realistic player can used realistic tactics and prevail.

Which brings me to another point: Battlefield 2 cannot be realistic and make as much money, so it never will. Realistic maps, weapons and such make combat closer to what it is in real life: largely based on strategy and tactics. Most players don't have the patience to learn tactical manuevers, and do not like dieing from 1 or 2 bullets.

So, I propose that mods do the work of specializing the game to the interest of the hardcore realism fans, while the average player is content with vannilla BF2. Right now, if you play 42, about half the people are playing 42, the other half are playing FH. These are the people would rather sacrafice graphics for content and strategy.