Patashnik
Member
+0|7077
One of the most common issues people have with aspects of many games is how they compare to real life. For example in the current AA vs Plane debate that "a real plane wouldn't" this and that or that a "real AA" wouldn't such and such.

It seems that what they choose to ignore is the basics on what you do when you play, have fun. Real life does not translate well into games with current technology.
It doesn't matter if the planes could take an AA hit in real life if the game balance requires it to die instantly or take fifteen before it goes down. If it is down to game balance then the real life stats and behaviours are a moot point.
We only emulate war in this game, it is a FAR cry from what it really is, so accept it for that. You can't have real life with a monitor + gaming periferals.


Here's some unfun things if you want to translate real life into game:

You would only get one bomb-run with a plane. You would lift off from a base or carrier and mostly see black sky (by night) for the entire run. You would not turn around in a 30ft radius and the base would be many miles away.

(almost) Every single shot that hit you would incapacitate you. A shot in the foot would send you plummeting to the ground, not being rescued before a medic or team of medics transported you away into either a military hospital (a bit longer than waiting 15 seconds after death).

Death would be permanent.

The field of battles would most likely be huge, infantry would move at a crawl when not being transported and odds are that you would have to wait several hours before actual engagement.

No VO-IP talk, you'd only actually hear people when they are within hearing distance.

You would get hungry, tired, cold, sweaty and run out of stamina quickly.



That's just from the top of my head. Please, I beg you, do not bring up real life issues that do not apply to a battlefield with respawning soldiers on a battlefield that is only a mile or so squared.

Thank You.
mayhemo4r
Member
+0|7081|CA
Here here
Its a game a GAME have fun stop crying if you want more reality play Americas army or join the military that's as real as it gets. The reality of war isn't fun
Support our troops criticize our leaders
Bert10099
[]D [] []\/[] []D
+177|7171|United States
BF2 is not a war simulator.  BF2 is an arcade shooter.
Bloody_Eye
Member
+0|7085
I think you should shoot for a certain degree of realism to add immersion so long as the realism does not interfere with or break gameplay.

Hence, snipers do not have to park for six hours and hit a special button to shit their pants because they have nowhere else to go to the bathroom and if they move, they die, but snipers DO have weapons modeled (in some ways) after the real world, even if they're not terribly realistic. On the same note, the planes should be balanced for gameplay while making them seem as realistic as possible.

Personally, I do think the planes need some love post-1.2. I also think they should make them as realistic as possible while keeping them balanced. That seems pretty sensible, right? I mean, Battlefield 2 in look and feel aspires to be a facsimile of real combat, and if it didn't try to resemble real combat, it would be less fun. So balancing things is very important, but trying to retain an illusion of partial realism seems worthwhile.
Patashnik
Member
+0|7077
Absolutely, but that wasn't the point of my post (I didn't mean for it as a 1.2 discussion). I was more talking about the fact that people, time and again, refer to "but in real life" which really isn't a valid point (within reason).
Ashford
Member
+2|7079

mayhemo4r wrote:

Here here
Its a game a GAME have fun stop crying if you want more reality play Americas army or join the military that's as real as it gets. The reality of war isn't fun
Support our troops criticize our leaders
Are you trying to say Bush isn't good enough for you? Because your at a higher level than everyone else?

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard