Jump to content
lordhedgwich

Graphics suck?!!?!?!

Recommended Posts

Although CM is really good, it's not the most realistic game out there...

 

How isn't it realistic? You're talking about procedural simulation versus abstraction and modelling; this isn't a realism argument. They're both trying to simulate something. Steel Beasts Pro PE is arguably very hardcore in terms of modelling but the player experience sees many things abstracted - it is not a button-pushing sim. 

 

ArmA's scripting system is the heart of these things - it makes much of it possible but it is also its achilles heel and the cause of a lot of multiplayer synch weirdness. 

Edited by Sulman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, I'm not saying CM is not realistic. All I'm saying is that Arma is more detailed in some aspects. If you want to go full realism in the artillery department, you can use mods in which a player needs to call in a proper fire mission, then another player on the other end of the line inputs that information into a firing computer, and then sends that information to a player manning a weapon who then fires, then the first player adjusts fire and that loop continues. That's a much deeper simulation than CM does, in which it loosely simulates artillery by playing around with some numbers behind the scene.

 

Although CM is really good, it's not the most realistic game out there...

So you compare a Coop Multiplayer tactical shooter with a Single Player tactical wargame ?!

How should CM do it ?

Have a Coop mode where one player plays the FO team while another player plays the artillery ?

Apples and oranges i would say... :rolleyes:

 

@ Jock Tamson

No, the AI still sucks a** in using buildings...

Edited by Wiggum15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thewood1, the ArmA you describe is a ArmA modded with 5+ mods and played exclusively in MP !

Also, ArmA is still a FPS, you can play it like CM (commanding squads and vehicles while viewing the battlefield from above) but that makes not much fun, try telling a (AI) MG team to setup their MG in the second floor of a building...try it and cry...try telling a (AI) tank to drive backwards 50m and pop smoke...please try it.

But you can spin that the other way...in ARMA you have to set up firelanes and worry about friendly fire.  Very rarely is that a consideration in CM.  Again, there are good and bad about both.  I am not trying to sell people on one over the other.  I like both games.  But a lot of people here have blinders on thinking that CM is the only game in town.  Just look at the activity on BFC's forums compared ro ARAM.  Its an entire world of tactical gaming.  Its hard though.  CM is so much simpler to play.  But if you have the ambition, you can get ARMA to do about anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this comparison to arma is in my opinion way off hand and uncorrect. The only common thing is that they deal with modern weapons, that's it.

 

The two products not only are different by tradition (past 10 years of development), concept, scope, they are also extremely different in terms of budget, developing team and investment.

 

So, in my opinion, any kind of comparison is a joke. You can like one of them or both, just don't put one against the other because it's not correct for any of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this discussion is like people arguing over TV vs streaming.  Its a demographic thing.  I suspect the age here is twice what the average age is over on the BI forums.  Those are people that will look at how a game is built and judge it on that.  Even if ARMA is only 80% of what CM is, people on that forum will stick with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thewood1, the ArmA you describe is a ArmA modded with 5+ mods and played exclusively in MP !

Also, ArmA is still a FPS, you can play it like CM (commanding squads and vehicles while viewing the battlefield from above) but that makes not much fun, try telling a (AI) MG team to setup their MG in the second floor of a building...try it and cry...try telling a (AI) tank to drive backwards 50m and pop smoke...please try it.

 

That has nothing to do with which game is more realistic... I think now you are just trying to bash Arma for no reason.

 

Sure, Arma has problems with AI in urban areas. But CM has problems with the AI as well. Go play against the AI in an urban area in CM, they are mindless zombies then. Arma has similar issues. In the open, the AI fares much better, that counts for both games. However, one thing to keep in mind is that Arma has a dynamic AI option that can make strategic decisions on the fly, while CM AI is mostly static/scripted. This does not necessarily make Arma more or less realistic, though.

 

CM is not meant to be modded. Arma is mainly a multiplayer (co-op) game that is meant to be modded. Different type of games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this comparison to arma is in my opinion way off hand and uncorrect. The only common thing is that they deal with modern weapons, that's it.

 

The two products not only are different by tradition (past 10 years of development), concept, scope, they are also extremely different in terms of budget, developing team and investment.

 

So, in my opinion, any kind of comparison is a joke. You can like one of them or both, just don't put one against the other because it's not correct for any of them.

The games are different and can't be compared feature for feature, but ARMA can be made to accomplish the same thing...higher level tactical command.  The argument is there is no game out there that compares to CM.  And yes, if you narrow it down enough you can make it correct.  But there are games out there that will tend to draw people away from CM because it might be considered old school.  Two products can accomplish the a similar thing and have completely different development paths and features and functions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CM is so much simpler to play.  But if you have the ambition, you can get ARMA to do about anything.

Wait...

CM is as simple to play as top-down tactical wargame as ArmA is as first person tactical shooter !

ArmA is far more accessible for most people because its a...shooter..., even kids understand how to play it...run around and press to kill...

I know you can mod ArmA into a huge buggy monster.

I know you can do anything with the editor and mod tools...if you have the time !

If i would want to play a platoon size fight with me as the commander on my PC (alone...no MP !) i would prefer CM over ArmA3 + mods any day !

Edited by Wiggum15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

So you compare a Coop Multiplayer tactical shooter with a Single Player tactical wargame ?!

 

Why not? Somebody was wondering how realistic Arma is. You then came in and wanted to proof that CM has a much more realistic damage model and is therefore a lot more realistic in general. And the rest is history...

Edited by BlackAlpha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The graphics are not cutting edge but they are still very good for this kind of game. The old combat missions didn't have great (comparatively) graphics either, but they made up for that with stellar gameplay and graphics that were good enough. I love the Battlefields and Total Wars of the world, but they have multimillion dollar budgets and legions of programmers working on them. For what resources I think BFC has I think they've made a very good game here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I wanted to know how realistic arma is I would go to arma website, search for arma info on youtube etc. Really couldn't care less when reading CMBS forums.

And again, comparing the two products, is an exercise of masochism.

 

About the real topic here, CM graphics, I also agree with coffeis4closers, if you take a look at CMSF you can note a great deal of improvements. Sure the graphics can be better, direct3d lets you have more goodies, but in the end I agree with BFC, graphics come after sim. I am one of those who would like millions pumped into BFC, dozens of artists doing 3d models, 2d graphics, dozens of programmers adding that particle effect to tracks moving etc. but the truth is BFC is what it is, and I can live with this.

Edited by Kieme(ITA)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Wargame series of RTS is good fun. Are you seriously comparing this decent RTS to a tactical combat simulator like CM:BS though? No matter how seriously you play the game it is still a highly simplified RTS game.

 

ARMA is a great high fidelity FPS depicting modern combat made even better if you hook-up with a serious group of players. It is but a minor blip in the market compared to the rest of the FPS genre where realism takes a back seat every time to 'fun'. I'm still not sure what a high fidelity FPS game has to do with tactical combat simulators like the CM series though - their have always been high fidelity FPS games - a minor subset of the FPS genre. Were people years ago comparing the Rainbow Six games to CMBB and bemoaning that the graphics of CM couldn't compare to the Rainbow Six standard?

 

 

Niall im going have to disagree with everything you say, completely and vociferously. You just dont "get" the point of what I am trying to say. And I will say no more for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I wanted to know how realistic arma is I would go to arma website, search for arma info on youtube etc. Really couldn't care less when reading CMBS forums.

And again, comparing the two products, is an exercise of masochism.

 

Forgive me your highness. Which subject would you like us, your lowly servants, to discuss next?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaps.

 

Im just going to say this now.

 

This thread is going the way of all threads on similar topics - what I posted on the second page.

 

Old sticks in the mud vs progressionist players - these threads always end up locked for one reason or another as well.

 

I suggest to all other progressionist players, and those new to combat mission since the inception of CMBS: leaving it to lie and we will have to just ride it out and see what comes along in the future.

Edited by Stagler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have no idea.

I dont know, i played OFP, ArmA2 and ArmA3...have 1400 posts on the BI Forum and made many coop mission for the games (available on armaholic) but maybe i have no idea about ArmA, yeah.

Edited by Wiggum15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know, i played OFP, ArmA2 and ArmA3...have 1400 posts on the BI Forum and made many coop mission for the games (available on armaholic) but maybe i have no idea about ArmA, yeah.

 

You clearly dont know how vehicle damage is handled at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That may be true, but the default damage model is at least semi hitpoint based and very simple.

Thats why you can set damage (via script) to only a handful of vehicle parts and you can set the overall damage (0.0 - 1.0).

Never saw ERA defeat a RPG HEAT warhead in ArmA, never saw damage to optics or sensors.

Edited by Wiggum15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one aspect that is different is that the conceptual game engine function has matured while in CMSF it was entirely new. I don't know if CMx2 v3.0 can be upgraded to CM×3 by keeping it's current game engine but giving it the ability to use multi-core processing and maximize video card capabilities.  

 

If the new 'under the hood' architecture could be added to what we have right now, I would be a very happy customer! I think that would completely open the door for the game to have all the functions we want, graphics and game-play wise and the game would run fast, even on my old laptop, which has 4×1.73ghz processors. (I know..I know, will be upgrading soon!).

 

I don't want a 5 year investment on an entirely new engine. But I want the above ASAP. And more CM titles.

 

CM with better gamer appeal = more customers. Mo' money for BFC means more games that we all love. Bring it!

 

Disclaimer: I am essentially just spitballing here.

 

OpenGL is pretty dead in the water as far as engines go and going from single core/32 bit to multi-core/64 bit isn't without its problems. It would probably require a rewrite of a number of the underlying systems that make the CM games work. So it isn't an insignificant upgrade and it might be better for them just to go on towards engine #3.

 

Of course I don't know their situation so eh.

 

I guess my point here is I suspect that everyone wants nicer things. Its just that CM is a technically complex game so reworking the foundation isn't an easy thing to do. Even if that is just adding multi-core support. Hell for all we know they could be building up to some sort of multi-core release overtime, or they could be spending all of their time getting new stuff to work in game.

 

This is increasingly becoming an issue of workflows and how things are done in BFC. Does a new vehicle need a programmer to make it work, or is there a streamlined process for any person to say "it has a 75mm gun with X velocity, and let me change the density of this piece of armor" without getting into the code, or are each of these vehicles hard coded. Right? Does one of the programmers need to go in and make this vehicle work or is there a process they have setup? So like, yes, we all want nice things, but it isn't a question of wants, but a question of capabilities. We don't know the capabilities.

 

 

Edit:

 

Going on the Arma tangent for a bit. Arma and CM don't really do the same thing. However, you can setup a sorta of command system with only what is shipped in the game. So I setup a understrength platoon attack on an enemy position. I was sitting at a truck with a map and planned out the attack and sent my men off. I kept track with a UAV and the map. It was a really interesting situation to not have total knowledge of what anyone saw (even if the anyone is the kinda sloppy AI). At one point I couldn't understand what was happening on the battlefield so I had to run on foot to the location of the squad, dodging bullets on the way, to give orders with a better view. So I'm sitting behind a wall with bullets and explosives landing around my position ordering squads around.

Edited by Pelican Pal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That kind of attitude is clearly out of place on this forum.

 

Well, you came with a snarky comment saying that we should stop discussing whatever we were discussing, and so I sarcastically asked you what you think we should be discussing. The question still stands: What do you think the topic should be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification Pelican,

 

and it's also a matter of monetary investment. If you have 1 programmer you can ask him for a new engine (for example the multicore 64bit), but let's say he will tell you: ok give me 5 years and you got it. I have no idea how much time would be needed, all I know is that it's not so easy (otherwise it would have been done already).

So, do you hire more people? You should, but how do you pay them? What kind of new Investments can be done? All these matters come before the game is released and more fans join in. This is often overseen.

 

BFC is a small company and its tracks are quite set. If I was rich enough I would go there and toss money, without any consideration for it, to Steve asking for every goodie I can imagine (first of all combat mission Vietnam with working helicopters). It can be done, money can do a lot, but would Steve accept? He might not, and he is wise at least to think about saying no, because there's a lot more to consider, any kind of investment can really change BFC and every step must be considered wisely, even if money grew on trees.

Edited by Kieme(ITA)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

OpenGL is pretty dead in the water as far as engines go

 

Someone better tell Valve that, and all those Linux and OS X devs. 

 

This thread has at least been good value if only for the notion of ArmA III's engine being some sort of example of performance. Thanks for the laugh, seriously. It's notoriously inefficient.  The animation refactoring project and continual AI work are a legacy of of the original OFP code.  The fundamentals of CMx2 are newer

 

I still don't really understand the point of this. They're completely different games. I'd expect there's little if any crossover, and most people would want to play either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you came with a snarky comment saying that we should stop discussing whatever we were discussing, and so I sarcastically asked you what you think we should be discussing. The question still stands: What do you think the topic should be?

...he basically said "Back to topic please", i think that was easy to figure out.

And the topic is not ArmA vs. CM...

@ Sulman

I dont know, ArmA3 runs much better on my PC then CM:BS...

Edited by Wiggum15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

...he basically said "Back to topic please", i think that was easy to figure out.
And the topic is not ArmA vs. CM...

 

Gotcha, no more Arma3 vs CM...

 

 

...ArmA3 runs much better on my PC then CM:BS...

 

Wait a second, you're cheating! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...