ArmA 2 vs Project reality?

Hi!

I am a really big fan of realism games or just true stratic games. I love to play on big servers with lots of people with an unfogiving game and lots of teamwork. The games i have played to date that have this functions in fps are project reality (BF2 mod), söldner (only played like the demo but loved it), ww2 online (i have not played this but am very interetsed about it) and empires (a half-life 2 mod which is basicly an rts, you have free infantry (these are players) and research better tanks and vehicle factorys where tanks (controlled by players) cost resourses points that are gained by holding and building certain resourse points on the map, but every unit is player controlled and you have one commander on each team, quite fun and quite strategical and tactical if you have a good team which can use squads effective but not realistic).

Firstly i have been chosing between OPF2: DR and Arma2 to try to found out which is best as in more true to the orginal. And i think it is Arma2, if not only becouse OPF2: DR has only 16 player multiplayer max.

And i have some question first about Arma2 multiplayer. What is the max player amount on servers? I have only seen the number 50 on reviews, and honestly thats a really low number considering that the hl2 mod empires can play with 64 players and that is with the bloody hl2 orange engine that is very old compeared to this game and mainly made for indoors! But i have seen on this forum the mention of 100 player server, is that true? How often are there actaully 100 players thar are like full? How is team work?

Also no matter how hard i scan the internet reviews and this forum i can't seem to find any information on multiplayer modes for this game, or the multiplayer experience for that matter!

The closet to reality i have played is the BF2 mod project reality. It is really well made with the squad system and having a commander whos only real function is actually to controll their teams movement opposed to the rts building commander of Empires and one hit near fatally wounded system.

So i am mainly woundering what players who have played Arma 2 and Project reality feel about the games and how they compear. Which games offers on avereage more teamwork? Which game is more "epic" to play, for example it is not unusual for a project reality game to last over 2 hours sometimes with 64 players. Also a big question is the server max player, bf2 "only" allows 64 players and i think thats a bit few, but i have heard that Arma 2 can counter this by allowing players to have mini AI platoons/companies in multiplayer?

Also as a sidenote if anyone has had any experience with the mmo game ww2 online please give your views on how the games compears! I mean ww2 online is a mmofps and truly tactical so that could be an option if this games, according to my views, is "worse" then the mod Project reality.

Thank you for reading and hopefully answer :)!

(Side note i have done my mandatory national military training service in the Swedish army as an mechanised infantry attack soldier for 11 months so i know what is realistic and what is not).

For a starter try the demo to get a general idea of what ArmA 2 is. That said ArmA 2 has much more than the demo offers.

Sirex1 there is already a good thread just about this very topic.

Use the forum search and you shall find. ;)

Hi and welcome Sirex1,

First off forget OFP|DR (I have it). Codemasters own the name and produced it as a console game (which is realistic for them) then was directly ported to PC. It looks nice but gameplay is VERY basic. The true soul of OFP was created by BIS and lives on in ARMA2.

I haven't played WW2|Online but was quite interested myself but its too big I think and the fact of subscription put me off. Plus it looks terrible (which is understandable given the scale)

Not played BF2|Reality but looks like a slightly better version of BF2. Hmmm..

I think ARMA2 has all the elements of a realistic battlefield simulation that you are looking for. It has some quirks but since patch 1.04 many things have been fixed.

There is exactly the MP game you describe called WARFARE which mixes RealTimeStrategy elements of building forces etc.

Max players is limited only by server power and now with the new linux server available max players should increase. Duno what is max players currently.

As JW Custom said, "Get the demo" to try and make sure it runs OK on your machine. (Needs quite a good machine to run well)

Do a google search for VBS and VBS2. That should tell you if its where you want to go ;)

You can have unlimited people on the servers in Arma2 if you want ofcourse but 100 as maximum is recomended.

CO-OP is most popular

You can play Campaign in COOP up to 4 persons.

People also create there own missions for CO-OP

You also got warfare, where you got a commander (ai or real person) wich builds bases to create units (RTS STYLE) and the other players to capture towns, its a battle between US and Russia these servers mostly consist of 32 person but every person van have AI with them up to 11.

you got Deathmatch-HOLD-AAS and alot more minor game modes.

For a starter try the demo to get a general idea of what ArmA 2 is. That said ArmA 2 has much more than the demo offers.

I have downloaded the demo but it don't answer my multiplayer questions since there is only like 3 multiplayer server with acceptable ping. And i liked the demo, just it took some time before i figured out that tring to play in firstperson is not viable since it becomes to hard to see what your squad buddies rambo offs to, even with numpad view and hold alt view.

Sirex1 there is already a good thread just about this very topic.

Use the forum search and you shall find. ;)

Searched for project reality but didn't see a versus thread.

Hi and welcome Sirex1,

First off forget OFP|DR (I have it). Codemasters own the name and produced it as a console game (which is realistic for them) then was directly ported to PC. It looks nice but gameplay is VERY basic. The true soul of OFP was created by BIS and lives on in ARMA2.

I haven't played WW2|Online but was quite interested myself but its too big I think and the fact of subscription put me off. Plus it looks terrible (which is understandable given the scale)

Not played BF2|Reality but looks like a slightly better version of BF2. Hmmm..

I think ARMA2 has all the elements of a realistic battlefield simulation that you are looking for. It has some quirks but since patch 1.04 many things have been fixed.

There is exactly the MP game you describe called WARFARE which mixes RealTimeStrategy elements of building forces etc.

Max players is limited only by server power and now with the new linux server available max players should increase. Duno what is max players currently.

As JW Custom said, "Get the demo" to try and make sure it runs OK on your machine. (Needs quite a good machine to run well)

Do a google search for VBS and VBS2. That should tell you if its where you want to go ;)

Hi thanks for the welcomming :).

Yeah i think i forget about OPF2: DR. Yeah ww2 online seems really interesting, i have thought of getting some friends to trail it with me when we have the time. Projectreality is a really good mod and is nothing like the arcade BF2 main game.

Arma 2 seems to be my type of multiplayer game, but i have a real hard time to found any solid information of how the multiplayer actually is and that's why i had so many questions about it.

Yeah i got the demo but it can't give a good view about the multiplayer, even though i like the single player pretty much, havn't really tested the command aspects yet though. And my system runs it quite well on very high :). AMD Phenom 2 x4 BE 3.0ghz, Powercolour Radeon 4870X2 4gig 1066mhz ram.

You can have unlimited people on the servers in Arma2 if you want ofcourse but 100 as maximum is recomended.

CO-OP is most popular

You can play Campaign in COOP up to 4 persons.

People also create there own missions for CO-OP

You also got warfare, where you got a commander (ai or real person) wich builds bases to create units (RTS STYLE) and the other players to capture towns, its a battle between US and Russia these servers mostly consist of 32 person but every person van have AI with them up to 11.

you got Deathmatch-HOLD-AAS and alot more minor game modes.

I am glad to hear that it is no developer artificall max player setting!

Thanks for the information, what other game mode exist? How advance is the chain of command and how respected is it on avereage? 32 persons totally or on each team? Do we have any refernce page for the multiplayer modes or a site where i can read about typical multiplayer experinces?

I am very intereste to read more about the Warfare mode, how popular is it? Are there similar modes with more players? Is there any mode which actually plays with 100 people or close to that number on a regualuar basis? How does the AI work with vehicles, can you have one guy commanding a tank platoon with the team commander commanding him and it actually works?

Also i still would want views from people who has played Project reality and or ww2 online and this game.

Thanks everyone for answering so quikly :).

If you want proper stuctured gaming head over here and look for a clan that you like:

http://forums.bistudio.com/forumdisplay.php?f=90

This is an example of GOL clan co-op:

If you want proper stuctured gaming head over here and look for a clan that you like:

http://forums.bistudio.com/forumdisplay.php?f=90

This is an example of GOL clan co-op:

Thanks for the links, i liked the video! Will think of joining when if i get the game. Even though i will try to join a Swedish squad, USA and brittish has such strange combat proceduers i think.

I have downloaded the demo but it don't answer my multiplayer questions since there is only like 3 multiplayer server with acceptable ping. And i liked the demo, just it took some time before i figured out that tring to play in firstperson is not viable since it becomes to hard to see what your squad buddies rambo offs to, even with numpad view and hold alt view.

Searched for project reality but didn't see a versus thread.

Hi thanks for the welcomming :).

Yeah i think i forget about OPF2: DR. Yeah ww2 online seems really interesting, i have thought of getting some friends to trail it with me when we have the time. Projectreality is a really good mod and is nothing like the arcade BF2 main game.

Arma 2 seems to be my type of multiplayer game, but i have a real hard time to found any solid information of how the multiplayer actually is and that's why i had so many questions about it.

Yeah i got the demo but it can't give a good view about the multiplayer, even though i like the single player pretty much, havn't really tested the command aspects yet though. And my system runs it quite well on very high :). AMD Phenom 2 x4 BE 3.0ghz, Powercolour Radeon 4870X2 4gig 1066mhz ram.

I am glad to hear that it is no developer artificall max player setting!

Thanks for the information, what other game mode exist? How advance is the chain of command and how respected is it on avereage? 32 persons totally or on each team? Do we have any refernce page for the multiplayer modes or a site where i can read about typical multiplayer experinces?

I am very intereste to read more about the Warfare mode, how popular is it? Are there similar modes with more players? Is there any mode which actually plays with 100 people or close to that number on a regualuar basis? How does the AI work with vehicles, can you have one guy commanding a tank platoon with the team commander commanding him and it actually works?

Also i still would want views from people who has played Project reality and or ww2 online and this game.

Thanks everyone for answering so quikly :).

32 Total

Warfare is the most popular game mode after CO-OP

In Warfare 32 on server is Maximum as far all servers go.

The commander is elected by votes.

You work with a money and supplies system, you get money over time and by killing-destroying enemy's. You get supplies by sending a supply truck to a captured town.

You need both money and supplies to build bases- money only for defenses and units.

In Warfare you got the commander who builds bases like i sayd before and who can give orders to other players/ai.

In warfare you always control a group(platoon), you can buy every type of soldier -rifleman-At soldier-A soldier-Spec ops-

You can also buy tanks-planes-choppers, with AI inside them or not.

gtg go now but heres a site with more info.

http://forums.bistudio.com/forumdisplay.php?f=79

Warfare forums from Arma 2

http://www.armedassault.com/warfare.html

Manual at the bottom of the web page.

In terms of realism, the games aren't even close. The BF2 engine simply doesn't allow much in this aspect in general, and especially when it comes to shooting. Not that Arma 2's shooting is perfect at all, but it's heaps better than the shooting in PR.

When it comes to finding people to play with on public servers, I don't have much experience with this aspect of PR, but from what I hear from PR players it's much better there than here.

Unlike PR, its very to find teamwork in the public part of the Arma games, you must join a clan or community, or play on other closed servers such as TG.

http://www.tacticalgamer.com/arma-2-general-discussion/143915-how-get-started-arma2-tactical-gamer.html

Have fun.

I find both fill a different niche for me. If I want a little bit of realism, fast gameplay, and not having a hard time to find people talking on mic then I will play PR. If I want a lot of realism, big maps, using a little more thinking, and more choices in terms of weapons then I will play Arma 2.

Also no matter how hard i scan the internet reviews and this forum i can't seem to find any information on multiplayer modes for this game, or the multiplayer experience for that matter!

I think I should start explaining that from the OFP beginning. It came with a few small official MP missions which featured COOP, CTF, DM, SectorControl. None of them were very popular later on. So you can say the MP part wasn't covered by official content.

But because of the sand box nature and the editor people created their own missions/game modes. CTF and SectorControl/C&H and basic scripting became most popular at first for PvP and of course COOPs were made. Later on scripting advanced and Battlefield replica missions were played often and also CTI came up. CaptureTheIsland was like a Command&Conquer module for multiplayer: Two bases, two commanders, every player an squad leader+ai and resource management.

For ArmA2 BIS added CTI named as "Warfare" official to the game, paying a little more attention to the MP. Still every other game mode/mission you can expect now will be created by players or maybe even yourself. Not much limits for creativity.

Big COOP missions named Evolution are very common public, offering an arcade game play for hours where you capture village by village and unlock better equipment.

Berzerk missions are SectorControl.

And some promising realism SectorControl missions system was tested a while ago, sadly I don't remember the name at the moment.

That said you should look yourself into the user missions board for multiplayer missions. There you'll see what's going on by now. Just keep in mind that more complicated missions can't be played adequate on public servers because of many players behavior.

EDIT: Also the whole (buggy) single player campaign is official included for COOP in ArmA2

I think I should start explaining that from the OFP beginning. It came with a few small official MP missions which featured COOP, CTF, DM, SectorControl. None of them were very popular later on. So you can say the MP part wasn't covered by official content.

But because of the sand box nature and the editor people created their own missions/game modes. CTF and SectorControl/C&H and basic scripting became most popular at first for PvP and of course COOPs were made. Later on scripting advanced and Battlefield replica missions were played often and also CTI came up. CaptureTheIsland was like a Command&Conquer module for multiplayer: Two bases, two commanders, every player an squad leader+ai and resource management.

For ArmA2 BIS added CTI named as "Warfare" official to the game, paying a little more attention to the MP. Still every other game mode/mission you can expect now will be created by players or maybe even yourself. Not much limits for creativity.

Big COOP missions named Evolution are very common public, offering an arcade game play for hours where you capture village by village and unlock better equipment.

Berzerk missions are SectorControl.

And some promising realism SectorControl missions system was tested a while ago, sadly I don't remember the name at the moment.

That said you should look yourself into the user missions board for multiplayer missions. There you'll see what's going on by now. Just keep in mind that more complicated missions can't be played adequate on public servers because of many players behavior.

These 2 game are VASTLY different although they both operate under the premise of realism.

Where PRM succeeds over any other realistic type shooter is the "out of the box" squad based gameplay.

Because most servers will boot you if you don't join a squad and because most squads will boot you if you are not pulling your weight, it essentially forces team play.

While the firearms modelling IS limited by the engine, it models one area of modern combat that A2 does not model very well and that is supressive fire. The feeling of being pinned down in PRM is excellent. I'd go as far as to say that I've NEVER seen it done better.

Firefights in PRM are also closer to RL than in anything else I've played. This may be down to the fact that it is always people and not AI, but saying that, I've played big non AI matches in all of BI's games and they don't feel as "right" as PR does.

That's not to take anything away from A2. It has it's own strengths, but if you like squad based adversarial gameplay (PvP) then PRM is worth checking out.

Another great feature is that PRM does not allow just anyone to run their server. You have to be approved to run a server which generally means that they are VERY well moderated and maintained and tbh, although there was some limited cheating in the past, I have not seen anything noticeable in recent history.

Cheers

Hi and welcome Sirex1,

I haven't played WW2|Online but was quite interested myself but its too big I think and the fact of subscription put me off. Plus it looks terrible (which is understandable given the scale)

Well I have to say WW2 online rocks! There is a new patch that will be out by years end that will improve the graphics several fold. Many of us who play it deal with the looks because the game play is very sweet. I can understand the sub putting you off but you should give it a try. Like this game you can fly, tank, Inf, use AT and AA guns, and even pilot boats. I would wait for the 1.31 patch to come out. They will be having a few 14 trial again soon also. So if you or any one else wants to know more please pm here. I would be more then happy to get you started and help you learn about the game. It is a lot like arma2 but set during WWII.

PR as it is now delivers a much more satisfying online experience in my oppinion. I always get better player interaction, better team play and a steady choice of great servers that are nearly always full of excellent players. I've been in single squads that have held off the entire opposing team for upwards of an hour due to teamwork and good fire control

Very well done maps, good kit system ( basic rifle squad kit and limited support kit), good squad and command system, good comm radial system. And yeah like a previous poster said, the suppressive fire effects are great! When an angry MEC gunner is shooting his vehicle's .50 at us across the waterfront on Mutrah, or a Insurgent group has sighted with Ak's and RPG's in the valley we sure as hell know about it!! Screen goes all to hell blurred and dirty, accuracy is none, can't hear anything but a ringing and the sound of round wizzing by and kicking up dirt and stone.

And yes the BF engine is limited, but the PR team have maxed it out as far as they can now - and my God they have done an excellent job, and you must remember they are just a mod team not a game studio! I believe they are currently looking at licensing a new engine for their work.

@BigJonny

thats true. Comparing public Project-Reality and public Arma2-servers the teamplay is much better in PR and the overall experience as infantry. There are only 2-3 PvP servers in Arma2 with good ping and lots of players. On zero of them is good teamplay. The squad communication, rallypoint-system, the overall squad-based multiplayer architecture in project reality has to be a standard for good online military-shooter.

sry for my crap english :o

as long as that server have no EVO and DOM maps to keep out kids, and is being admin by someone who knows how things works, plus a general server rule enforce everyone to play as they should, even if it is public server, that would be a good server

In terms of realism, the games aren't even close. The BF2 engine simply doesn't allow much in this aspect in general, and especially when it comes to shooting. Not that Arma 2's shooting is perfect at all, but it's heaps better than the shooting in PR.

When it comes to finding people to play with on public servers, I don't have much experience with this aspect of PR, but from what I hear from PR players it's much better there than here.

Realism has many sides, you talk about the physic realism then sure Arma 2 appears to be better, but which is more military battlefield more realistic? That is the question.

Unlike PR, its very to find teamwork in the public part of the Arma games, you must join a clan or community, or play on other closed servers such as TG.

http://www.tacticalgamer.com/arma-2-general-discussion/143915-how-get-started-arma2-tactical-gamer.html

Have fun.

Thanks, i will defentivly join a clan then. But since i have done the Swedish mandatory military training year i will proppably join Anrop.se or ssg-clan.se if they are still plaiyng. Since they are using real military proceduears and Swedish military terms, i find the USA and Brittish military proceduers odd.

I find both fill a different niche for me. If I want a little bit of realism, fast gameplay, and not having a hard time to find people talking on mic then I will play PR. If I want a lot of realism, big maps, using a little more thinking, and more choices in terms of weapons then I will play Arma 2.

Yeah it seems that Arma 2 will be more of a simulator then a game. You input parameters and observe :). While PR is for real multiplayer teamwork combat.

... Good text...

That said you should look yourself into the user missions board for multiplayer missions. There you'll see what's going on by now. Just keep in mind that more complicated missions can't be played adequate on public servers because of many players behavior.

Thanks, and like i said to previous poster i think i need to view Arma2 more as a simulator to play around with then a ordinary game.

I also thank the rest of the posters in the thread for giving their views, especially Buckly views about the ww2 online state, i think i try the trail later on with two of my old school buddies who i usually play with everynight :p. So please PM me or write here when tha patch has hit and when people can trial it.

The general conclusion i have made here is that Arma 2 does not provide a big teamwork experience with really big player numbers on a realistic setting. And that PR is superior in pure online match, but on the other hand i can't play PR with out a mumble only server and RT is lowly populated :(.

But i have bought Arma 2 now and i think i will enjoy it for the simulatar capabilities,if i have the time i will propabbly involve my self in the modder community.

PR certainly has a better online aspect right now than Arma2, but in my opinion ARMA was worthless on MP until ACE came out. the ACE missions were so much more intense and fun, with proper planning on good servers.

Unlike PR, its very to find teamwork in the public part of the Arma games, you must join a clan or community, or play on other closed servers such as TG.

http://www.tacticalgamer.com/arma-2-general-discussion/143915-how-get-started-arma2-tactical-gamer.html

Have fun.

TG isn't a closed server as such - you only need to register on the forums and you can then get access to their TS server. TG is also not a clan but a community that play many games so I would recommend joining them as you can often find other games to play as well.

Well I have to say WW2 online rocks! There is a new patch that will be out by years end that will improve the graphics several fold. Many of us who play it deal with the looks because the game play is very sweet. I can understand the sub putting you off but you should give it a try. Like this game you can fly, tank, Inf, use AT and AA guns, and even pilot boats. I would wait for the 1.31 patch to come out. They will be having a few 14 trial again soon also. So if you or any one else wants to know more please pm here. I would be more then happy to get you started and help you learn about the game. It is a lot like arma2 but set during WWII.

Good to see you here Buckly!

Seems there are quite a few from the Battleground Europe (WWII Online) community that also enjoy ArmA 2. I've not played PR but I can speak to concerns about ArmA 2 and WWIIOL. These are both splendid games that offer different things.

ArmA 2 offers modern combat in an open environment. If you want PR type team play I suggest hooking up with the Tactical Gamer guys or another group like 1st ID or 75th Rangers, there are lots of excellent groups out there. The missions on most public servers are not designed to force team play so while you may find it, there is no guarantee that you will. Groups like TG keep tight control over their servers, forcing team play and they offer some great scenarios. With the ArmA 2 editor you can build any type of mission that fits your fancy and community made content adds to the possibilities. I understand that PR is good, for BF2, but you are limited there. Just take a look at the two addons forums and you will see what I mean. There is no recurring fee unless you want to purchase the upcoming expansion and it offers you literally years of game play that never has to be the same twice.

WWIIOL: Well, I'm playing ArmA 2 because I can't afford the sub right now. I could have subbed for 6 months instead of buying this game but I thought ArmA 2 would be a worthwhile investment and I was right. WWIIOL offers WWII combat obviously. It offers it on an incredible scale. A lot of people get frustrated, they don't like the graphics or they can't comprehend the ballistics and penetration engine which is about as real as it gets and many can't get a grasp of the supply system. The learning curve is quite large, even compared to ArmA 2. Battles can range from 10 players to 500 players in a single town and a cooperative effort of combined arms is required for success. It is not unusual to spend 8 hours battling over a single city only to lose it the following morning and the world is semi-persistent, meaning the server isn't reset until one side has complete control over the map. A campaign can last from 2 days to 6 months depending on how determined the opposing forces are to pull out a victory and morale is a very real and decisive factor.

All in all, these two games are very different and personally I would not recommend one over the other because it's not an apples to apples kind of thing. You can get both, or decide which will fit your desired game play. What I've read of PR is great, but honestly, people only rave about the restrictive rules forcing team play. You can get all of that in ArmA 2 if you so choose and with better graphics and greater variety and flexibility.

Arma 2 can give you a lot better teamplay than PR when playing the right missions with the right players, but yeah public play mostly will not show much teamplay at all. Heck, the missions that are usually played on public servers are made to work without teamplay. Once you play a realistic mission with no respawns, you'll either have teamplay or you'll fail miserably.

The realism in Arma 2 isn't just about actual game mechanics, it's also about giving you the ability to make/play missions much more realistic than anything PR can offer.

Arma 2 can give you a lot better teamplay than PR when playing the right missions with the right players, but yeah public play mostly will not show much teamplay at all. Heck, the missions that are usually played on public servers are made to work without teamplay. Once you play a realistic mission with no respawns, you'll either have teamplay or you'll fail miserably.

The realism in Arma 2 isn't just about actual game mechanics, it's also about giving you the ability to make/play missions much more realistic than anything PR can offer.

Nope, not even close unless you are talking about small coops. You can't gripe about respawns because PRM is a PvP game, and for the most part, A2 is not. PRM really wouldn't work if there weren't respawns and PRM does not involve "missions" as such.

A2 beats any other game going in terms of being able to create your own unique content but that isn't PRM's purpose or it's intent. You are comparing features that don't bear comparison.

In terms of large scale, squad based PvP battles with an eye to realism, PRM really doesn't have an equal at the moment.

Instead of these long winded threads that go nowhere how about making

small point point like posts to lists what needs to be changed in a2 to make it better

or more PR like.

That way modders could actually improve a2..