Squad, A Tactical FPS From Ex-Project Reality Folks

A standalone sequel to the popular Battlefield 2 and Arma 2 realism mods Project Reality was announced back in 2013, but we’ve seen little of it since then. Separately, however, another group of folks who worked on BF2’s Project Reality have banded together to make a tactical FPS they hope will be “the spiritual successor to PR in everything but name.”

They call it Squad [official site], which will cause trouble with our tagging system because, y’know, that’s also the name of the studio behind Kerbal Space Program. No one ever thinks of me. But here, come watch videos and read words and things like that.

The Squad Development Team explain that the game “seeks to bridge the rather large gap between arcade shooter and military sim”. They’re planning modern military action with 100-player battles, vehicles, chain of command communication jazz, objective-driven shooty shoots, and all that. Here, look at some of those things:

This comes from its Steam Greenlight campaign, which it recently sailed through in only one week. They have a few actual gameplay videos, but they’re scrappy old things that are probably not super informative about what the game now is and may be.

As for the Project Reality connection, they say, “Officially, we have no formal connection. There is an effort at a non-commercial PR game called PR2 which we hold no affiliation with. Generally speaking though, nearly all of our developers are retired members of the core Project Reality: BF2 development team …”

They expect to release Squad in “early 2016” and do plan a crowdfunding campaign to reach that.


  1. Gap Gen says:

    Now I want an Octodad-style Tactical FPS called Squid. Ludum Dare is coming up. Just sayin’.

    • CookPassBabtridge says:

      Full Cephalopod Warrior?

      • Gap Gen says:


        • CookPassBabtridge says:

          Rubbery Arms: Road To Hill Squirty

          • Gap Gen says:


            Inksurgency (but no, yours was great)

          • Llewyn says:


            (I’m sorry, don’t hurt me.)

          • Ravey says:

            Guys, I think I’ve got it… wait for it…


            Octodad’s Army!

          • CookPassBabtridge says:

            I am out of puns but wanted to say: I love pun threads.
            @ Gap Gen My good man, TentaclA was a work of slow burn superlativeness. Took a moment for the cogs to turn then… tea on keyboard.

            I dunno. I’m Trying to fuse Tom Clancy games with molluscs.

            Rainbow (Trout) Sticks: Tapas?
            Back to work :(

          • Gap Gen says:

            I guess you could push for Cuttlefish: Octodad Company

          • CookPassBabtridge says:

            I literally have a wiki with a list of tactical shooters in one tab and the entire taxonomy of phylum: mollusca in the other. Its just struck me I am essentially getting paid for this.

          • SlimShanks says:

            Squidden and Dangerous?
            Saving Private Bri-ne?
            Call of Ctul… oh wait.

    • Ravey says:

      Hidden & Octopus

  2. EkoAzarak says:

    ok.. Project Reality was/is amazing. it turned BF2 into an intense and fun experience. After the first round of PR i never touched vanilla BF2 again. I think its the best mod ever created for the Battlefield series. and yes i played them all. when EA cut mod support for BF3 I knew i would never play that shit. Fuck you EA. die.

    looking forward to spending countless hours playing Squad. (and ya it needs a better name)

  3. Hexedian says:

    Ok, new rule : you’re no longer allowed to name your game after a single noun. It’s getting ridiculous, and it doesn’t help differentiate your game from all its competitors anyway.

    • SlimShanks says:

      Also, your trailer should not be allowed to say “hardcore” anywhere in it. This word is tainted.

  4. dsch says:

    Wouldn’t this turn into a disorganised nightmare on public servers, which seem inevitable with so many players?

    • P.Funk says:

      Project Reality has managed it well using the old community tool of the dedicated server with admins and rules and active members of the community taking leading roles.

  5. SuicideKing says:

    So…it’s like Arma, then? I can see people cooking grenades so I guess that’s more America’s Army. Maybe this will be a nice alternative to Arma, and serve as competition for BIS, leading to improvement of both games. Maybe.

    • Gap Gen says:

      Yeah, it’s difficult to determine from the trailer how it differs (other than being infantry-focussed, apparently). I guess it could have a different feel, but ArmA already feels quite all-encompassing for the kind of thing they do.

      • manny says:

        Pretty obvious, focus on squad level combat, sub-100 metres CQB where almost all combat happens in modern warfare.

        Ironically ARMAs military simulation connections has optimized it to simulate combined arms warfare and largely ignore the sub-100 meter sphere, let alone fighting in structures.

        At least I hope so, that is an untapped market and technically the most relevant for infantry and the average joe. Also there are military simulation opportunities as well given the future/networked soldier programs of every modern military.

        • inferno493 says:

          I always felt area was far too slow and clunky feeling for squad level fps action. I love the granularity of it, being able to gear up from a nearby APC, worrying about how much fuel you have in the hummer, etc. but the first person mechanics always seemed about three seconds behind what I was trying to do. PR has always been the most memorable and enjoyable squad based shooter I’ve played.

        • SlimShanks says:

          For a start, average engagement range is around 300 meters. Secondly, I’m not sure what you mean when you say Arma “ignores” CQB. I guarantee you a CQB fight in Arma will be more realistic than in any other game purely because of stance controls. Show me another game where you can shoot your gun from the left shoulder, use urban prone, roll in prone, and lay on my side. Very useful things when your enemies are close. Not saying it’s perfect or anything but… please don’t put forth an opinion if you have no idea what you are talking about.

          • manny says:

            80% of urban combat occurs below 90 yards. That’s the score in Iraq. Afghanistan might have been 300 metres. Call it village combat.

            Just because ARMA has really slow and clunky stance controls doesn’t mean it’s more realistic.Makes everything run in slow motion when in reality your moving like lightning.

            I haven’t played Project Reality, but STALKER Lost Mod had the most realistic combat I’ve encountered easily eclipsing ARMA 2, and that was an fps shooter/rpg, so my criticism is justified.

          • P.Funk says:

            Manny, why don’t you go on over to the youtubes or liveleaks and check out some of the helmet cam footage. Yes, urban combat is short range, but there are lots of open spaces in Iraq, and especially in Afghanistan.

            They have this gun they use the US Army and Marine Corps. Its called the M240. Its a 7.62 medium machine gun. It has lots of reach, like out to over a klick. They need that sucker because their dinky little 5.56mm toys don’t reach that far and thats definitely where they get shot at from. Very very far quite often. Sometimes the enemy does try to get up real real close, but in general most firefights are at range.

            Also, most firefights are SLOOOOOOOW. Nobody runs around like an idiot all the time. Most infantrymen get real low, really really really low, use their eyes, analyze the situation and take their time because… well respawns don’t happen. When its time to move… sure they do it with some alacrity, but most of the time its about being careful, getting every angle covered, laying down a web of mutual support.

            Even CQB isn’t fast most of the time. Human beings who value their lives tend to move slowly when there might be a bad guy with a gun pointing at them, be it at 300m or 30. The pace of Arma combat is probably closer to real life than any other shooter. Yes… thats not fun for most people, but why is war supposed to be fun?

          • firefek says:

            I’ve been part of a conscript army in my country. What Manny probably refers to is FIBUA (Fighting In Built Up Areas). It is true that FIBUA or Urban CQB has become much more common now because of conflicts being in cities. Largely because guerilla fighting in cities negates some of the technological advantages that modern military forces have over insurgents.

            However, the emphasis for combat is in the medium range. Most conventional firefights will take place over hundreds of meters. Why? Because FIBUA is so damn dangerous and unpredictable. Unless you can train every single soldier to special forces standards, you can expect very heavy losses, especially when you are in a foreign land.

            But either way, as stated by P.Funk, the representation of CQB in video games is much faster than it is in real life. I’d say ARMA has a pretty good representation of what it’s like. Unless you have a very good idea of the building layout and have tons of practice in mock-ups, don’t expect to run through them like SEALs. One unchecked corner will cost the life of one or more of your squadmates. Combat is pretty tense, time flies when you’re fighting, even though everything moves slow.

          • SlimShanks says:

            I will totally agree with Manny on the point that the clumsiness of controls in Arma has a negative effect on all parts of the game, but particularly CQB/ FIBUA/ MOUT/ whatever. Framerate issues can also be problematic when playing online with lots of people. It’s really a matter of preference whether that is a deal breaker to you though.

  6. neofit says:

    Everybody does PvP. Now some huge coop missions like Domination could make this one interesting.

  7. OmNomNom says:

    Excited about this after the disappointment that is R6 Siege.

    I hope it isn’t TOO much like ARMA as it needs to be distinct in its own way.

    Slightly entertained that when they had ‘communication’ on the screen the guy was saying “there’s one at that gate over there, errr by that door” xD

    • OmNomNom says:

      Also… in the nicest possible way… thank god its UE4 and not ARMA’s engine

  8. Curry the Great says:

    The key difference of this game and Arma 2/3/4 will be that this game is focused on the realistic EXPERIENCE, while Arma focuses on realistic bee shadows. The difference between PR and Arma is obvious after you play them for a while. I think Arma gets stuck in detail-land way too much. The stance system sounds great on paper right? But in the game it works too slow to really react quickly. And it’s the same with pretty much everything in Arma. Even the interface is still a nightmare modders have to cobble together.

    Squad on the other hand favours realistic gameplay and teamplay over finicky details. This is crucial and it’s for this reason I hope it’ll become the best realistic shooter on the market when it’s out. It’s the only right approach imo, and no shooter has done it properly yet (save maybe the PR mod).

    It’s a pretty niche genre that often gets games made by devs obsessed by detail and less by gameplay. To see this switched around is great!

    • VitalMoss says:

      If we are talking realistic experience, then ArmA is EXACTLY What you are looking for. Just because you don’t know how to effectively use the Stance Adjust system (Which, once you get the hang of it, works exactly how you need it to) you become significantly more effective when utilizing cover.

      Also, don’t make assumptions about a game that isn’t fully released yet. What I’m seeing from squad looks to be a hybrid of Insurgency (Slightly Arcadey FPS) and ArmA (Large Battlefields, Combined arms).

      ArmA is a military simulator/sandbox for consumers. From the conversations I’ve had with ex-military and active-military soldiers, ArmA is a better at simulating firefights, both over and under 300 meters.

      What people seem to forget that in real life, BULLETS HURT. You can’t just respawn. People are not going to rush around a corner if they know that it means they could possibly die. CQB is going to be tentative, and isn’t going to end in casualties until soldiers know what they are going to do. Laying down cover fire, staying near hard cover, etc… It’s about ensuring your guys don’t die while also ensuring that the other guys aren’t going to be shooting at you later.

      • Curry the Great says:

        That’s exactly what I don’t like about Arma. I don’t care that much if it’s super full realism and like a real firefight. I want to be have fun in a public game, a focus on teamwork, and things to not be so clunky. You can say what you want, but arma 3 is clunky as hell, never runs as smooth as it should and the interface is a mess.

        I know it’s a bit hypocritical, but I really want something that’s playable and not fully on the realism, but still encourages teamplay and gives me an authentic feel. That FEEL is the key word. I do not care for an authentic true to life situation, cause I think that’d be boring and not something you can jump in and have fun. A little bit like Red Orchestra, but Red Orchestra 2 dropped the ball in the realism area a bit and a in the teamwork area very much.

        The aims of this game are pretty much my holy grail in gaming. My super specific acquired taste, and I’m happy about that. Arma never scratched that itch enough.