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

[imported_Dr.D]

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....

Nah they had about 5 servers, one of which always had people in it.


I chose Fun over realism almost any day except in extreme cases

[Kattspya]

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

APCs doode.....

Of course they were in APC:s. The whole point of mechanizing infantry is to make them keep pace with the tanks. Break through the line and then dismount and kill people. You don't form a line with tanks interspaced by infantry and march side by side towards the enemy position.

[Kattspya]

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

Please note that I'm not talking about BF2 here but the real world.

Did you just compare WW2 to modern combat?

Care to tell me one war where bot sides have had an abundance of Javelins, SRAW's or MBT-LAW's?

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.

If you march along at the walking/jogging pace of infantry you give them ample time to pick off tanks one by one. I'm talking about goddamn breakthroughs here not city fighting.

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.

Of course Javelin's will kill a tank but are the javelins more or less dangerous if you're going five miles an hour or 40?

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.

Then please tell me how the hell USA conquered Iraq in a couple of weeks. The whole point of MBT's are to break through enemy lines. You don't ride up to the enemy lines dismount and moves toward them slowly, you gun it and dismount when you are in or behind the lines.

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

That's true. And it's also true that a slow moving tank is an easy target.

[imported_Svartberg]

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

While not a big fan of realism, i always liked immersion in games.
Realism has something to do with immersion, for example you could make tanks fly like choppers, and choppers drive on ground like tanks - it would have exactly the same balance issues like the game now (just switched animations), yet most people would find it silly and it would ruin their immersion and thus fun.

On an arcade game like enemy territory for example, i have fun when i triple headshot a few of the opposite clan, instagib them quickly and trickjump my way out of the rest - there's no immersion there i tell you.
In bf2 i would have fun just to see how everything people do or say, have something to do with the battlefield, being a part of a fun wargame, or in other words, escaping into another world for a few hours.
Realistic, hardly. immersion value, hell ye.

Many people, including myself rant about issues - for example bunnyhops/dolphin diving - close quarters GL, etc ... this ruins the immersion because it makes me leave the world i escaped to, because of childish people who exploit things to win ... people who can't enjoy a good game because they lost.

And i doubt the realism whiners really want realism, because if bf2 was to be realistic, there would be no reviving/healpacks/ammopacks/etc - i believe the whines are about immersion, not realism.

[Donkey]

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

Then please tell me how the hell USA conquered Iraq in a couple of weeks. The whole point of MBT's are to break through enemy lines. You don't ride up to the enemy lines dismount and moves toward them slowly, you gun it and dismount when you are in or behind the lines.

First off we didnt conquer anything... Think about when in the hell has any conquering force trained the "enemy"...since if your theory of the US conquering would mean that all Iraqis are the "enemy" why the heck would we then train and supply their new army?????????

why so quick? got one word for ya AIRPOWER....

Finally I think we all can agree that tanks and infantry both support eachother...

And finally talking about Airpower I love how some of the same people that bitch about realism also say the jets are too powerfull....right and a 2000lb bomb doesnt do shizzle...

[Eden]

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

You can never make a game 100% realistic it just wouldn't be fun. But you can make a game more realistic, just because someone want BF2 to be more realistic does not mean they want to die in one shot or have aircraft that take 10 minutes to get off the ground.

Take PR for example, they are making a mod that makes BF2 more realistic but they have found a balance between realistic and fun and when you get that balance the entire game becomes ten times better than what it was.

Eden

[Kattspya]

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

First off we didnt conquer anything... Think about when in the hell has any conquering force trained the "enemy"...since if your theory of the US conquering would mean that all Iraqis are the "enemy" why the heck would we then train and supply their new army?????????

why so quick? got one word for ya AIRPOWER....

Finally I think we all can agree that tanks and infantry both support eachother...

And finally talking about Airpower I love how some of the same people that bitch about realism also say the jets are too powerfull....right and a 2000lb bomb doesnt do shizzle...

Ok thank you that's enough. I give up,,you clearly have a better understanding of tank tactics than I have. Of course beating a regular army isn't relevant.

[imported_Psycho]

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

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!

They Had a .50 cal rifle in DC that was one shot kill and the game wasn't unbalanced, you just make it so if it hits the person in the arm or leg it doesn't kill them and if they are a class with armour it doesn't kill them in one shot unless it hits them in the head.
Also if you make the sniper rifle realistic with bullets that go where you aim, drop from gravity and bullet delay then there would be no problem as people who aren't good snipers literally wouldn't be able to hit anyone at long range.

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.

I agree, i can unstand how this got put in the game, but the fact it hasn't been fixed is retarded, also who was the idiot who fault it was a good idea to make it so people can jump that high, they could have quite easily put a climbing animation in when you go over walls, i didn't even have to affect the player who is doing the climbing it could have just been an animation.

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?

I agree that this is completly unrealistic and the extent it has been put in doesn't help game play, i personnaly think you should only be able to heal someone up to 50% when you drop a bag and the other 50% has to be done by a medic standing next you.
It is also stupid that the health packs on the ground will work basically instantly after you take the damage, i shot someone with a sniper bullet and that is 95% damage but because they had thrown medic bags all around them when i reload and hit them again it doesn't kill them.
It would also help if the medic bags on the floor didn't work instantly but you would have 50% health in them and they would repair you as you stand over them like when a medic stands next to you and heals you.

With the shock paddles, they should only give you 50% health when the person is revived, as this would also mean medics then have to heal them by standing next to them if they wanted to give them full health.

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 realism shouldn't be everything but with kits like the medic realism needs to be added to make it more of an equal kit.

[Paas]

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

Please note that I'm not talking about BF2 here but the real world.

I was speaking in terms of how reality relates to the BF2 combat situation. You see. In BF2. Breaking through enemy lines is not really portrayed because most of the combat takes place in VERY restrictive enviroments. Which is why I said:

...Tanks DO NOT move without infantry support. Maybe in extreme engagement ranges. But, not in terms of what BF2 displays.

Which means all your explaining breakthrough tactics and such is pretty much pointless to the angle I was coming from. BF2 does not display ANY combat besides "MOUT". Granted, some maps have a bit more space in them. Yet it's still MOUT.

I respects to reality. Yes, there are breakthrough tactics done by tanks. But! They are still supported by infantry in Humvees.

Care to tell me one war where bot sides have had an abundance of Javelins, SRAW's or MBT-LAW's?

No. I cannot give you a "war" where both sides had plenty of Javelins, SRAWs, or MBT-LAWs, but.. In most conflicts we are involved in most insurgents and rebels have PLENTY of RPG's on hand. They get the job done in a pinch.

If you march along at the walking/jogging pace of infantry you give them ample time to pick off tanks one by one. I'm talking about goddamn breakthroughs here not city fighting.

But, BF2 doesn't have ANY breakthroughs!? How did we get into the context of put reality!? And! Even in a breakthrough Tanks are supported by both APC's and Humvees. Do you honestly belevie a tank "Lonewolfs" it? Ever?

Of course Javelin's will kill a tank but are the javelins more or less dangerous if you're going five miles an hour or 40?

Effectiveness aside. It's going to hit BOTH targets. The Missile moves MUCH faster than 40mph. Granted, the one moving faster may not be dealth a lethal blow to the crew. But! The tank is not going to be moving much after it's all said and done.

Then please tell me how the hell USA conquered Iraq in a couple of weeks. The whole point of MBT's are to break through enemy lines. You don't ride up to the enemy lines dismount and moves toward them slowly, you gun it and dismount when you are in or behind the lines.

APCs. Tanks. Humvees. It was a coordinated assault. With tanks being the brute of the firepower while infantry works to clear buildings and protect the tanks from any means of AT ordiance. The APC's provided the mobility that infantry needed in order to correctly support the armor.

That's true. And it's also true that a slow moving tank is an easy target.

Tanks don't move very quickly in a MOUT situation. You're kinda limited in terms of mobility and direction so tanks put much faith in their infantry support in these situations.

Other than that. You're right. A stationary tank is hard to hit than a moving one.

{WP}Paas

[Kattspya]

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

OK, it looks like I misunderstood you then. I thought you meant that you march in a nice line in BF2 and in real life under most conditions. I just hate misinformation and wouldn't like to see people get the wrong idea. It turns out that my reading comprehension or your way of expressing your thoughts are a bit off. I wasn't looking for a lengthy debate.

Effectiveness aside. It's going to hit BOTH targets. The Missile moves MUCH faster than 40mph. Granted, the one moving faster may not be dealth a lethal blow to the crew. But! The tank is not going to be moving much after it's all said and done.

I'm not talking about the capabilities of the AT weapon I'm talking about the time the whole force stays exposed to fire.

Tanks don't move very quickly in a MOUT situation. You're kinda limited in terms of mobility and direction so tanks put much faith in their infantry support in these situations.

Most of Iraq isn't urban.

[Alcorr]

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

This is a good example of why "realism" is TOTALLY subjective.

While you were in Iraq did you have the convenience of being able to spawn
at your squad leader?

Did you have a 50 degree field of view?

Was aiming and firing a gun the same as pointing and clicking?

You didnt have UAVs but you did have intellegence, reports etc etc. You didnt have flags but you did have strongholds and danger zones.

You didnt have UAVs, but human eye site is FAR better than any computer can muster.

Its all subjective. For example, lets remove the cross-hair to make it more realistic - how is that more realistic?? In real life you can "feel" the gun, you can see in 3D, you can percieve movement and judge targets alot better...you dont have a cross-hair but you do have ALOT more cues to help you target things - so again how does removing a cross-hair mean realism???

People in real life move a certain way, like body language etc. In game characters dont do that so we cant pick up on it like we can in real life. Real people cant prone or crouch instantly, turn and change direction instantly. These are factors when concidering the "realism" of the guns. Everything is linked.


Once you change the "realism" of one aspect of the game it impacts on everything else - so you make the realism of the game as a whole decrease. Like you can make a gun less accurate but that might create unrealistically low kill rates because in real life people cant jump prone instantly to avoid it. Theres always a limit where realism falls down.

Every change effects something else, that propagates through different aspects of the game until you hit a fundamental barrier to realism e.g. the nature of the monitor, the fact that you use a mouse, the keyboard - theres always a barrier.

Excellent post Tenshi. If I had to choose one or the other I would take fun over realism any day. At the same time realism is subjective (as mentioned in the above quote) and some people say realism IS fun, so its a matter of personal preference.

The reason why people play computer games is because in real life getting a bullet in your head is NOT fun......so if anything...fun over realism...