There are two threads here on the first page... for a game that is only yet been announced and KS funded that's quite a bit, no?

Honestly, there are several great offerings out there right now already (ArmA3 and Insurgency to name two), several more announced (like SQUAD, Ground Branch) and other promising projects that failed miserably (like Takedown), I prefer to take a wait and see attitude. The era of the groundbreaking realism innovations has passed IMO, everybody that wants to can get pretty realistic, so there's barely any room left for a new product to differentiate itself from the rest. It comes down to how much relative emphasis the devs place on which elements of their simulation, and that we won't see until the game is out. And then it will depend on how many players it attracts. Again, we'll see...

Not to be negative, I just don't see much to chatter about at this point.

Yeah it's a real shame, game looks amazing and I'm happy to have donated for the Commander pack. The devs are extremely open and positive on the official forums. Can't wait to get my hands on this, finally a tactical shooter that isn't just a poorly performing sandbox with no real pub PvP element (ArmA) or a small tactical version of counter-strike (Insurgency).

It's actually a shame, people are so keen to moan and complain about the lack of tactical shooters wherever you look, when something finally comes along, people shrug it off by making silly comparisons between games that aren't even close to offering the same type of approach to the game / gameplay. Especially those idiotic Insurgency comparisons I see being thrown around in every single YouTube video just shows that people don't have a clue. No wonder why tactical shooters are dying, if this is the audience supposed to drive them.

Well, lets hope they deliver. It certainly looks more promising than Ground Branch, I'll give you that. Also, maybe stopping short of ArmA's size and complexity will make it acessible enough to bring in a lot of players.

Like few other Kickstarter campaigns, these guys actually had an amazing build ready before they even asked for money. Streamers and big YouTube profiles alike were playing it and praising it to the skies. So that lends to credibility over these half-arsed tech demos that some companies like to present. Plus, these guys are ex-developers on Project Reality which is definitely a known quantity, especially within the Tactical PvP community. It didn't really get much better than that in terms of size, teamwork and realism combined.

Problem with ArmA isn't the size, just the the fact that the game is completely fragmented and built up from the ground to be a sandbox experience, from frontend to core gameplay. You can't, as an individual, boot up ArmA and have a solid and 'fluid' experience of some teambased PvP combat without running into walls and barbed wire at every turn. The entire server browser is filled to the brim with Life, Epoch, Wasteland and whatever else you have. Then you have locked servers, servers you don't have the first clue what kind of mods they are running, incompatible versions and the list goes on.

You are almost 100% sure you need to download a metric ton of crap in terms of mods, external voice and set it all up before you can join some of these servers. Some of these modded experiences or "PvP" experiences are also poorly optimized, alongside ArmA's already poorly performing online experience, again alongside ArmA's already poor performing engine. Some of these servers, you will easily see 15-20FPS+- which just isn't acceptable.

Then there's obviously the incredibly janky CQB, falling through roofs, glitching through walls, poor animations and the list is just infinite. ArmA is not and never will be a contender for these tight PvP experiences, that are built up around that experience, rather than being crowbarred in.

So you need a clan to actually just get a whiff of that PvP experience, yet a majority of clans focus on fighting the AI. My last ArmA clan almost had a mental breakdown when someone mentioned a player versus player scenario.

Insurgency on the other end of the spectrum, is nothing more than a Counter-Strike for people wanting a more tactical experience, complete with ultra precise weapons and tiny maps. Yes, it serves a purpose but is NOT a substitute for what SQUAD can offer.

SQUAD sits in my opinion, perfectly between all these shooter experiences by offering a quality engine, great performance, a well-respected development team that already showed their worth, perfect sized maps, vehicle combat, fantastic sounds out-of-the-box (Guy who also made Sound of Anders mod for ArmA is responsible), quality animations, an in-game com system that mimics some of the TFA / ACRE experience and overall just a potentially immersive PvP experience.

I personally have no doubts about this game, especially as they already have a game to show for. I just feel people are too busy making comparisons to games that aren't even remotely similar in terms of actual gameplay, outside of them having weapons and focusing on authentic gameplay, which is kinda the cornerstone for a tactical shooter?

... That dragged on a bit. In summary; I'm excited and I think anyone who are genuinely interested in a good tactical PvP shooter should read up on the game.

Hmm, I'm a bit confused here. Can someone explain how this game is the next coming of god-like tactical PvP games? It will require a server, and it will also require people willing to get on voice chat and play as a team member with a bunch of strangers, good luck with that LOL. If you want to experience squad based tactical gaming online it will still require a "clan" just like Arma or any other game. Randon dudes on the interwebs don't give a crap about teamwork.

We play Arma online here 3 times a week on the SimHQ server and the online game is stable as hell. We play with mods, which enhance the game beyond what it was in it's vanilla form and everyone seems to manage the mods just fine. I'll take a look at this game when it comes out, but I really don't see anything too exciting or different.

Honestly, have any of you people ever touched Project Reality or is your only tactical reference ArmA?

Project Reality (and I suspect SQUAD will work the same way) has built in squad management with associated VOIP channels built into the game. The squad leader can communicate & coordinate with other leads as well as the side commander. With 100 players on a server this becomes a very immersive experience and you don't need clans to achieve this.

There are a limited number of roles within each team (2 x medics for instance); a team cannot survive without them and the experience for someone going lone-wolf will be pitiful at best.

Seeing that Project Reality 1.3 is free and standalone I recommend to anyone to download it and try it out for a while. It has some offline training functionality to get to learn the ropes, but this game really shines online. The players are generally more mature and are very welcoming to new players.

SQUAD is exciting because if they can achieve even an ounce of what they have done as essentially a mod for the Battlefield 2 engine it should be spectacular. With some modding one can get a similar kind of experience with ARMA 3, but as Sethos88 rightly mentioned there are some issues with ARMA that does not produce the same level of gameplay & performance.

I did in fact a while back (I actually bought Battlefield just to play PR) and wasn't taken at all. Despite all the added realism it still felt heavily rooted in the run and gun shooter it was based on. I can't list specifically what it was at this point, just that I didn't like it. It felt like battlefield with a bunch of added hoops to jump through for realism's sake. Maybe if I had played battlefield before that I would have been more enthusiastic.

ArmA is my reference because I feel they are closer to 'realism' than anybody else. And I say this because since the marskman addon at least I can see myself doing the exact same things I did/do in real life, and not out of 'best practice' but because the game requires it. BIS took the other approach, build from the bottom, not from the top, and for years you had to put up with certain gameplay issues, the parts of the puzzle not fitting together smoothly yet and a general lack of fluidity if compared to the FPS-based 'realism shooters' like PR. But inch by inch they brought it together and at this point I feel they are head and shoulders above the competition, even without mods, and even if, yes, you need a powerful machine to run it. Even the mods, now that they have steam workshop integration, are usually just a matter of subscribing.

So my take is if they can get to the gameplay level they had with PR and build from there it will be a great game, but whether or not it will be 'better' than ArmA will be a matter or preference at best. Sure, you may for example not have asked for birds that circle dead bodies and give away your position, but it's in the game and it's relevant. Maybe they can make a more combat focused menu system instead. I agree with you that ArmA's 'anything goes' approach can make things unnecessarily cluttered at times, but that's not a bad thing per se, just something you can't appreciate, because you're looking for something else.

Yes, I've touched it. I'd ask the same of you as you seem to know little about Arma 3 in it's present form. With a few mods it does everything and more I've seem mentioned about Squad. TFar radio is awesome, the new ACE medical system and everything else it brings (not going to list it all) makes Arma 3 amazing.

All of that being said, please direct me to these 100+ player servers for PR that are fully populated so I can educate myself as I'm willing to admit I'm wrong when I am. I'd love to give it a shot and see just how blind I am to how great Squad will be and PR already is. I'm all for moving away from Arma 3 if Squad offers something to warrant the move.

Doesn't sound like you actually played it at all, or remember it very well. You couldn't even aim straight without stopping for 3 seconds, how is that rooted in running and gunning? PR is the least run & gun game I've ever had my hands on, to a point where it frustrated me at times how brutal it was. Brutal stamina system, wounds and injuries that would kill you if they didn't get treated and the whole nine yards. Vanilla ArmA is an arcade game in comparison.

It's also the exact reason why all the "LOL how u expect people to communicate" is rubbish, if you didn't team up and communicate, PR would chew you up and spit you out in 5 seconds flat. If you went lone wolf, it was probably one of the least enjoyable shooters I've had my hands on because you felt so helpless. In the year or so I played PR, I couldn't join a single server without people speaking in-game left and right.

That is why Project Reality was so amazing. They actually managed to create a game that practically forced you to communicate and actually work together, that in turn bred a solid community that ran with it. That is why I just shake my head when people just doesn't get the fact that it is possible to have beautiful teamwork, with voice communications in a public server environment.

The game was merciless towards the run & gun gameplay, all the Battlefield superstars didn't stand a chance whatsoever. So it automatically rooted out that mentality and made that kind of players quit the game, which left players actually interested in the tactical, the teamwork and what the game had to offer.

But all this isn't about "Oh it's better than ArmA". It's to point out to the people with the narrow-minded approach of "Oh it looks like another shooter, then why do we need it". SQUAD actually offers something that neither Insurgency nor ArmA doesn't, either by not offering it or is too unfocused to be able to.

And don't mistake me for some ArmA newcomer. I've played the game since the original Operation Flashpoint demo was released, back when we modded that thing to hell and back. ArmA is the only game that does what it does but it's by no means a focused, tight experience due to its sandbox roots. It's on a woeful engine, entire community is fragmented to hell and back, including the game itself because it's so highly moddable. To ever have a fun, focused experience in ArmA you need to join a clan of which 90% just fight that horrible AI that sees through vegetation or doesn't see you until you tap them on the shoulder.

SQUAD isn't meant to be an ArmA replacement, they aren't competitor products. SQUAD doesn't have a single-player campaign, a mission editor, ability to fight AI or any of that. SQUAD is meant to be a player versus player experience, on medium to large maps, with cars, trucks, bikes, helicopters and planes. It's meant to be a focused experience where you can start up the game and join a server without jumping through a million hoops. It's meant to continue what Project Reality started in terms of what public servers were like, which was amazing. They are even adding insane quality in-game coms with similar radio features to ACRE/TFA in terms of filters, directionality etc.

It's also the first hardcore tactical shooter that has actually done really, really well on Kickstarter to my knowledge. Which is surprising but also tells you its great legacy through PR.



I'd direct you to the last part of my post, above this quote. What you and others seem to misunderstand is, it's not an ArmA replacement. They are separate games, offering separate experiences within the realm of realistic tactical shooters. Which is why I find it odd that people get in defensive posture in YouTube comments, various forum threads and almost want to kick the game because X and Y game is available. It seems people don't want multiple choices when it comes to tactical shooters, despite everyone screaming at the top of the lunges that the genre is dying and nobody releases any games.

But let's see come release, it'll either fly or fall

Agree. I've just started playing PR and its brutal. Great sounds too. Not a run and gun shooter at all.

Honestly, I find that when I get on a public server in Insurgency that more often then not people are working together and some are using VOIP (usually taking control). If you don't, the AI (assuming it's on a high level), will destroy you by yourself.

The one thing that irks me about Insurgency is it's limited scope. So I say that to say that it is possible to have teamwork and voice comms on a public server if the game demands it.

So if SQUAD can blend some teamwork with a more open scope, it should be great.

I hope it flies, and I'll probably try it out once it gets released and some objective assessments become available.
I really just don't understand why every time I see someone discuss how much they love Squad (a game they haven't even played yet) they always seem to have to slam Arma for some reason. Arma is probably the best tactical infantry game ever made IMHO, so I'm confused as to why it gets dragged into these discussions and beat on for no reason? The thing that really kills me is that people claim that Squad will be so much better because it offers way less options and forces people to play a certain way. Really, this is the thing that sets Squad apart?

A lot of people grew up playing Counter Strike and games like it on public servers full of immature troll/griefers and hated it. This is why you see clans grouping up and fighting the AI in Arma, because dealing with griefer kids just ain't no fun. I don't see how Squad, on public servers is going to be any different than CS other than larger maps, and forced grouping.

I do agree with those that say that the Arma community is fragmented, because it is! There are a large amount of mods and play styles that created this problem. There are some groups trying to get large scale PvP servers going, but again, as you and others have mentioned it requires a certain amount of computer savvy and patience to get all of the mods installed and running which turns a lot of people off. All of that being said, I'm not sure that forcing people into playing roles and styles of gameplay that they don't want is the answer to that problem.

ArmA gets dragged into this kind of discussion because both parties like to mention it. Unfortunately, in the world of tactical shooters with few games to pick from, players from both parties are extremely defensive and guarded about their choice of games, to a point where it sounds like only one game can and should exist in the genre -- Despite the community wish for more games in the genre. Same goes for Insurgency, which also gets brought up for comparison sake.

So what the discussion usually revolves around is trying to debate that ArmA isn't perfect, despite sitting completely alone in the genre, offering something very unique, it has an immense amount of drawbacks that annoy tactical players. Usually boils down to janky gameplay features, the performance and the sheer fragmentation as mentioned by both community standard and also the mods.

I've not seen a single soul claim SQUAD is better than ArmA full stop, because it's not doing what ArmA is. What is being claimed, is the fact that what SQUAD does, which has a certain amount of overlap with ArmA due to ArmA's sandbox nature and offering just about anything, it does those specific things a lot better. That has been proven by the extension of Project Reality.

You are already trying to downplay it by saying it 'forces' you to do something, play a certain way, less options. All negative words to attach to a game, that isn't trying to offer a sandbox experience. It's meant to offer a focused, player-versus-player experience on large maps with planes, helicopters along with armour in all shapes and sizes.

It's meant to offer a fluid experience from starting the game, to joining a server, to joining a squad and participating in voice communication and to enjoying a tactical experience. All that without having to jump through the many hoops you have to with the ArmA series. Yet it goes in the opposite direction from Insurgency by also offering the freedom in size of the map, vehicle combat and all that.

You disbelief in how public teamwork and communication works seems to stem from games that aren't tactical at all. Games catering and being played by a completely different crowd. Hence why I asked about Project Reality. Anyone who has genuinly PLAYED Project Reality, not just dabbled with it for 20 minutes knows how mature and active the community is. They know the kind of teamwork and voice communication that happens on public servers because the core gameplay simply doesn't cater for the lone wolf Call of Duty superstar player. They don't have the patience for it.

The same goes for Insurgency to some extend, maybe a lesser extender from my experience. It's a slower paced tactical game that caters for a specific type of player. The type of player that is happy to use a microphone to communicate maturely and apply some basic tactics.

I personally don't share your experience with public servers outside of the usual mainstream drivel of Battlefield, Counter-Strike, Call of Duty and all that. In core tactical, realistic games, people are much more mature and willing to play properly. Even if you still aren't convinced, nothing is stopping you from teaming up with your friends and starting an in-game squad, nothing. The entire game is built up around easy squad management and high-quality, easy to use in-game coms. Best of both worlds.

Counter-Strike is a mainstream title, full of prepubescent kids that caters specifically for the lone-wolf "look at me and my sniper 360MLG pro skills". It's the Call of Duty of the PC platform. So if you rely on that as your measurement for how public games work, then you've given yourself a pretty big ball and chain around your ankle.

As for your last part, I don't understand. How is that any different from playing a milsim ArmA scenario? Players are given 'roles' that specify their tasks in the missions. A squad leader, riflemen, machinegunner, designated marksmen, medics, all that. SQUAD offers exactly the same. Could also pick up another kit from a dead body if you so choose. So I don't see how that is any more forced than your average ArmA scenario.

But...Call of Duty STARTED on the PC!

Still think the original CoD was an awesome game, although shorter and more scripted than IMO the king of WWII FPS games, MOH:AA. Unfortunately Pacific Assault and Airborne didn't reach the levels of either of those, nor did CoD2 or WaW.


To make a great tac FPS, it's really quite easy. Take either Raven Shield or Ghost Recon and update it on a modern engine WITHOUT changing the game play.
No one will do that. I thought Takedown would...and might have had they not run out of money apparently in pre-alpha.




The Jedi Master

Sethos, I thought about what you said in your last post and agree with most of it. I did only give PR a short try as I really was turned off by the crappy graphics and cartoony look. So I really didn't play it long enough to really know everything about it. I also agree that the heart of the game was to have a chain of command and more realistic squad based combat on a fairly large scale. I think Squad will take this to the next level, and those who liked PR and going to LOVE Squad.

The part I don't necessarily agree with is that the community is more "mature" than other online gaming groups. I've been online gaming from the time personal PCs became available to households, so I understand the online gaming community This was the other reason I quit playing PR after a short time. Kids in your squad friendly PKing people on purpose, not following anyone's directions/orders no matter how nicely they were asked. Constantly having to kick people leaving the squad short. Trying to set up defensive positions like a perimeter defense only to have squad members completely disregard the SL and range out by themselves outside of the perimeter and either get killed, give away ambushes or simply wander off to who knows where. The software in Squad may be incredible, and it definitely looks great graphics wise, but in the end you'll still need a dedicated group of gamers whether it be a clan or just a group of players that know each other and enjoy the same kind of gaming experience. I was going to post some youtube videos of some "mature" PR gameplay but I didn't think it would be constructive.

What I meant by being "forced" is that there's no mission builder. So the missions, unless I'm missing something will be pretty much the same every time one plays. That's ok if you're a casual gamer that doesn't spend a lot of time at one game, but it gets a little stale after a while for me. In the end, the point I was ultimately trying to make is whether it's Arma3 or the new Squad game, you're just not going to get a mature, realistic experience with random people online. Every now and then you luck out and have a great game with awesome team mates randomly grouped up, but unless you're on a private server and with a group of known, good players in ain't going to happen very often.

Judging from alpha footage of SQUAD, I think it's basically Insurgency(source engine) with more open map...?

It looks interesting though.

I've also played games on PC online since it became an actual viable option with all the features we know today, so I also understand the online gaming community. Though I must admit, feels like a completely irrelevant statement given that we are working on a per-game basis, judging the community and the appeal of said game. Your experiences with PR certainly doesn't echo mine nor anyone I've heard play the game. Can you find bad apples? Sure but to the point where it sounds like your bog-standard Call of Duty experience? I have a hard time believing that. In the almost 14 months I played the game, mostly on public lobbies by myself, I was treated to an amazing experience in teamwork with strangers. That feeling is luckily mutual with a lot of guys within the PR community.

So this all seems to boil down to your lack of confidence online gaming in general and I can't do anything to change that nor do I really have a desperate wish to. Sounds like you already made up your mind So this discussion can continue on into the sunset with personal opinions and truckloads of anecdotal experiences. Doubt that changes anything for either of us.

As for "mission builders", I'd say of course you aren't going to find missions builders in competitive online games. That makes very little sense. They work off the thrill, excitement and millions of possible combat scenarios that happen by pitting human players against each other. If one finds that boring, then perhaps a competitive online shooter isn't what you are looking for.

Can recommend this video as a whole but specifically for the above mentioned argument; https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=13&v=G5WVDyinuHs and then at around 5:15

And again, if playing with strangers isn't your thing then team up with those said friends or a clan. The game allows it and has an integral squad system. So I honestly don't see the problem. Having confidence in the community and not minding to play on public servers, teaming up with strangers is purely a personal choice. It's not something forced on you.

Ultimately it sounds like SQUAD just isn't for you my friend. Sure, keep it in mind but it sounds like ArmA 3 is offering everything you want and more which is great. It wasn't doing it for me any longer, so I'm super excited about SQUAD

This!
PR is giving me the best teamplay experience ever! The amount of teamplay and communication on public servers is astonishing and thats why i pledged 100,- bucks for the kickstarter even if i have my doubts that i can run the game on my 3 year old rig!

And that's exactly why I'm not.

I will never wager money on a community coming into existence for a game. Now if this comes out as advertized and such a community exists and is working, THEN I will consider buying into something that is already there.

Assuming that what is happening with PR will automagically happen for Squad is one step too far for me to trust in.

I don't trust people.



The Jedi Master