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

[Donkey]

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

If you think blitzkrieg tactics wasn't used later in the war you are mistaken. Armor was almost always massed. Try to read about Guderian and some others who made the armor doctrin for the wehrmacht.

Of course tanks aren't decisive in urban battles against guerillas. But if the tanks were limited by the walking speed of infantry please tell me how they conquered Irak in a couple of weeks.

EDIT: Wehrmacht with a W

APCs doode.....

[Jofaba]

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

I kinda resent the fact that to have fun (in single player) with the snipe I have to switch to the "bad guys" because they have a multi-shot gun. That's not a realism problem, but since everyones complaining =P

[deathneo]

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

I wish they had a little more realism in it to be more fun....... It'll get rid of alot of noob tubing, tank shells that can actually take down a chopper in one shot, flares that needs to be reloaded on airfield so people can't whore in choppers and jets because they can keep evading stingers(which is freaking useless )
And on the note of realism/fun Why doesn't or can't the USMC Spec Op's class have M203's attached to their M4's.............................................. ......

[Rambo]

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

Fun dies out!, Realism never does.

[Jofaba]

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

I dunno, those suggestions sound like they make for a very boring annoying game. But all of it is doable. The Merc mod addresses some things like that, but I think what you want is less supported by the merc community so you'd have to learn how to do it yourself. Then you can release it for others like you as another possibility for play/fun factor. *shrug*

[Paas]

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

Mind you I'm not saying that tanks won't need infantry support sooner or later and in case I misunderstood you I apologize in advance. There is no need to get in a lengthy debate over this.


I think you've got the wrong idea about how tanks should be and are utilized in the real world. Ever heard of a thing called blitzkrieg? It's a thing heavily used by the german army in the 2nd world war. They piled up a bunch of armor and motorized infantry and broke through fast and followed up the break through before the enemy could recover and put up a fight.

Using your tanks as infantry support vehicles shows disregard to the lessons learned in WW-II.

I agree with most of everything else you said though, I also like realism.

Did you just compare WW2 to modern combat?

Did you!? Cmon' now. In WW2 they didn't have electronically targeted missiles. I can 100% promise you that no M1 is going to go rolling into anything without some type of infantry support. Hand-Helded weaponary is far too advanced to risk it. Granted, the M1 is a very good piece of engineering, but, so is a Anti-Tank rocket along the lines of a Javelin (Granted, if that thing is fired a tank it's pretty much ****ed from the get go). Heck, you get enough RPG's on an M1 in the right spots and you can seriously cripple the beast.

Tanks DO NOT move without infantry support. Maybe in extreme engagement ranges. But, not in terms of what BF2 displays. It's a quick way to waste a couple of million dollars, and, considering there is plenty of infrantry and eyes available around a M1. You would be silly not to move with at LEAST a fireteam.

...you can point an M24/M4/M16/M249 MUCH faster that you can point a tank turret.

{WP}Paas

[WarGimp]

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

I wish they had a little more realism in it to be more fun.......

I I mentioned, there are times when you can look towards realism as a justification to enhance gameplay. A great example is that jumping should use up more sprint energy and require that you have enough sprint to preform a jump. This would get rid of bunnyhopping and it's "realistic" since jumping up and down does actually tire you out.

It'll get rid of alot of noob tubing

That was a first page example. Yes, realistic 'nade lanched rounds that had a mimimum range would help curb noob toobing.

tank shells that can actually take down a chopper in one shot

This is likely an engine limitation. I don't think there's any sort of "special damage" types. In order for a tank round to take down a chopper, you would have to lower the chopper's armour. That has impact on other weapons effects as well. Suddenly you'd be able to take down BHs with .50 cals in NO TIME. Ya gotta look at the larger picture before making suggestions that could hurt overall gameplay.

flares that needs to be reloaded on airfield so people can't whore in choppers and jets because they can keep evading stingers(which is freaking useless )

AA missiles are broken. This is very well known. With luck, the next patch will give us usable AA missiles. Then we can see if flares need to be adressed. I suspect they are just fine since I can already sucker choppers 'n planes to drop flares early. You just have to be tactical about how/when you launch.

And on the note of realism/fun Why doesn't or can't the USMC Spec Op's class have M203's attached to their M4's

It's called game balance. Spec opps get C4. That's their shtick. If they also got m203s what would be the point of EVER taking the assualt class?

.................................................. ..

WTF is with all the dots?
Puting lots of dots on the end of your post doesn't help your argument out. It weakens it since it makes your post look rather... er... childish.
Never use more than 3 in a row if you want to be taken seriously.

[tewky]

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

This thread spawned a needless argument. Regardless of whether realism is better than arcade-style, the Battlefield series cannot and never will be realistic. Let me repeat that. Battlefield 2 CANNOT and NEVER WILL BE realistic.

Why, you ask?

Think about the geography of war... large battles don't take place over tiny geographical locations with a few tanks and jets, they span over hundreds of kilometers with carefully placed tank squads, air support, and infantry platoons. Battlefield would suck with a realistic size map...imagine walking for four hours just to find an enemy, only to get blown to bits by a stray bullet. If you noticed that I used "large battles" when referring to the geographical size of an area and was about to come back and say "but Battlefield 2 is about small battles," then listen to this. Jets and helicopters, contrary to popular belief, cannot fly in between buildings and have little armor, and cannot make hairpin turns. Tanks are not the versatile and efficient killing machines that the game makes them look like. Soldiers don't run across streets or into battles when bullets are flying around - if you don't believe me, ask a soldier or go play a paintball game and try that strategy.

Battlefield maps have been condensed so the action is always there, and because of this, jets have been slowed down to hundreths of their real-life speed, tank shells have lost their armor penetrating power (one tank shell would blow another tank to bits, and if not, would rattle it so bad it would probably stall out or stop functioning). Last but not least, it takes more than one bullet to kill somebody. Face the facts, if you took a machine gun bullet to the leg, it would rip it clean off and you would not be able to walk, and then would die shortly of blood loss.

I am not taking a stance on which is better, realism or arcade, I am only stating that Battlefield cannot be realistic, for if it were, nobody would play it.

[Digital-Boy]

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

APCs doode.....

What are you talking about, how are the infantry supposed to catch up with the armor? [/sarcasmdirectedatass******whonevergiveridesinAPCs]

[PBJTime]

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

I don't see why the M95 can't be a one shot, one kill weapon. It would make a sniper devastating as they should be. Right now, I know as long as I'm moving, I'm pretty much safe and snipers are relatively harmless compared to the other threats out there. I know there may be few exceptions to the rule and I'm sure some of you "uber" snipers will let me know, but given the experiences I've had, I do not waste much time worrying about them.

It works fairly well in SOCOM 2 with the M82 and M87. They are both loud, slow, one shot one kill weapons no matter where you hit someone and guess what? The rounds impact exactly where you aim them. To compensate for this, they use swaying and a momentary blur of the scope when you sight in so it comes down to user skill. As soon as you fire, most people know where you are so it keeps you on the move. This isn't perfectly realistic as there is no bullet drop but I feel it's a good compromise between realism and gameplay which in turn, makes it fun.

The argument may be made that everyone would be snipers then...well you simply can't win that way if you are playing a team with any skill. Snipers are very succeptible to being rushed, etc. I just don't see why it couldn't work here. They are similar games, minus vehicles in SOCOM 2 but in SOCOM 3.

Also, I haven't played SOCOM 3 yet but in SOCOM 2, we have our own version of "bunny hoppers" and divers.

Just my $0.02 on one of the things I would change to make it more fun and realistic at the same time.

[imported_bigpappa]

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

realism sucks, fun is funner

[rsgx]

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

Too much realism would suck, but on the other hand, too much arcadey stuff would also suck. If it were more real, the Americans would always win, as they're guns and tanks are much more advanced than the other factions. It would also be one of the most slow-paced games ever, as nobody would come out of their hiding positions to make themselves vulnerable to the one hit kill snipers and assault rifles. If it were more arcadey, there would be suicide bombers and noob tubers left and right. But I do think that BF2 is a little too arcadey. Getting killed by bunny-hopping noob tubers doesn't just get people pis*ed, its just impossible. In real life, grenade launchers have arming ranges, and even basketball players couldn't jump that high with a running start and springs in their shoes, not to mention jumping without even crouching.

[WarGimp]

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

Glad to see some good discussion here.

I should clairify my stance a little:
If your goal is to create a "sim", definatly the more realistic it is the better.

If you're goal is to make a game then realism should never get in the way of balance, mechanics, and good ol fun!

I don't begrudge folk who'd like to see a sim mod for BF2 like Project Reality (good on em. Not my cup of tea, but making themselves happy is cool), but understand that BF2 itself is a game first and formost. Thus, realism should only be applied to enhance the fun factor.

[imported_Wasp]

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

Imho realism is just a mute point. No current game engine is even remotely capable of producing something realistic. Even if it was possible it would only be potentially fun if you pitted two equally strong factions against each other. Consider for one moment what Gulf of Oman would have looked like after 20 minutes of artillery fire, plane bombing and tank shells. Forget taking off with a plane on the runway. Forget having a building to hide in. Not to mention what it would be like to take a flag with a 25mm cannon sweeping the flagzone.

There are a few things that could be done to make BF2 more fun however. Both in clan matches and in public servers. In the case of the US assault rifle realism have actually gotten in the way of the fun factor. I make a connection here between balance and fun. The real M16A2 has only burst and single like portrayed in BF2 but it makes for a pi.sspoor cqc experience. There is a way to keep the "realism" factor and give the poor US trooper some full auto power and that's as easy as putting an M16A(3) in the designation. One thing BF2 and AA have in common for me is that I find myself picking up an AK whenever I can.. The same goes for the US medic. Give him some full auto power too.

The bunny hopper must go. That's a no-brainer. Or atleast give us a bajonet so we can put one up the crotch of the guy flying over our head.. Take the 203 away. Give the assault kit more accuracy, stopping power or whatever it takes to get rid of that contraption. It wouldn't hurt to give the support a bit more accuracy either.

[iewgnem]

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

Perhaps hook a shock paddle to you heart so when you die ingame it kills you in real life, cant get more realistic than that.

BF2 is pretty arcade tbh

I mean, heat seeking missiles do miss 90% of the time in real life, but people dosnt like that.

There are no "development team" in real life to balance things out, there are no place for you to whine about base raping in real life, people should be glad BF2 is not more realistic, if it is all those 12 years old would just go back to their arcade CS, think its "realistic", go to Iraq when they grow up after he failed highschool due to playing CS(yes it would last that long), and die because he thought he would respawn.