Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Really disappointed in what I've seen with SF2 screenshots.

 

Looks like the same old CM2 game engine. Call it upgrade 4, upgrade 100...or whatever it's called now. It's still the same engt that was developed in the late 1990s.

 

I was hoping for something more...perhaps a new game engine that would support larger maps, better terrain, better performance, better multiplayer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BFC have never claimed it would be anything else...pretty much a V4 version of CMSF is what they have been saying for quite some time now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I don't follow the forums much, and BFC doesn't extend communication beyond here.

6 minutes ago, RepsolCBR said:

BFC have never claimed it would be anything else.

I guess that's a good thing, then. Aim small, miss small. 🙄

Edited by Apocalypse 31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah... CMx1 was late 90s. x2 was definitely developed in 2005 and 2006 time frame. And the initial SF is light years away from even the original CMBN let alone the engine now. Plus no one is making you buy SF2,  most of your complaints seem graphics repated and theres definitely no shortage on eye candy RTS'.  As realistic a landwar game though? Not so much.

 

The aim low comment is unnecessary really. Since you said you domt come here much then you wouldnt know but the forum has been an absolute $hitshow with ppl complaining about release delays, claiming BFC is a sockpuppet company or is bankrupt. It really was getting insane.  If they did the improvements you wanted it'd take years to do.

Frankly Im impressed BFC is offering a discount to owners of the first game since Im guessing most of the purchases related to SF 1 are almost ten years old now.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

 Aim small, miss small. 🙄

Gameengine updates, more modules and stuff...we all want that...who wouldn't ?

But unfortunatelly it has not been all smooth sailing for BFC the last year or two...some hick-ups along the way...

In this thread they describe their current situation a bit...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

Really disappointed in what I've seen with SF2 screenshots.

Looks like the same old CM2 game engine. Call it upgrade 4, upgrade 100...or whatever it's called now. It's still the same engt that was developed in the late 1990s.

I was hoping for something more...perhaps a new game engine that would support larger maps, better terrain, better performance, better multiplayer.

As others noted CMSF was released in 2007. That was the first CM2 game so not sure what you mean by 1990s. In addition the models for CMSF2 are all updated to later game standards so now you are looking more at a game matching something released in 2011 and later so over a full decade from your post. Are you sure you are referring to the dame game?

granted there have not been all that many yet and almost none with detail on the soldier models but if you look at screnshots for CMBS you get a better idea if that helps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did see in previous posts @Apocalypse 31that you were disappointed in CM graphics. I don’t think anyone here would disagree in the sense of always wanting something more, but the reality is compromise is a part of life. Given the size of BF to expect it to produce a tactical sim at the level of CM and beat any other graphics out there is maybe a bit much to expect.  Yeah I’d love to see some more stuff like treads breaking when hitting an AT mine. Parts flying off and better wrecks on the battlefield etc etc. However 1 I think CM graphics are still pretty darn good and 2 I wouldn’t sacrifice anything on the sim side for better graphics. 

It is all subjective on what we value and expect but I’d have to disagree with the opinion you have expressed that somehow BF graphics are extremely substandard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, sburke said:

I did see in previous posts @Apocalypse 31that you were disappointed in CM graphics

Not just about graphics. 

 

Shadows and anti aliasing still look really bad.

Performance doesn't equal graphics quality. I could do with the current graphics quality if maps were larger (we're taking moden weapons. An M1A2 can engage beyond 4k) and performance was better.

 

Also, still 1v1 MP? Come on. 

Edited by Apocalypse 31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

I could do with the current graphics if maps were larger (we're taking moden weapons. An M1A2 can engage beyond 4k) and performance was better.

It's not just a performance issiue when it comes to larger maps...For us to see a steady stream of significantelly larger maps being made...especially by the community it would also require some major updating of the scenario (map) editor.

Even designing the larger maps we se today to the standard that we have been spoiled with recently takes a huge amount of time.  A map that is twice of four times as big would be a real beast to design with the current editor...I don't think it would happen very often.

So...beside improving performance BFC would pretty much also need to update the editor to make this a very usable feature imo...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

Game engine developed in the 1990s? Huh? If you're going to post ad hominem attacks get your facts right at least.

Correction: Early 2000s.

 

At this point the game engine is ~12 years old, and it really doesn't matter if it was pre or post Y2K because it is still a dinosaur and lacks the capabilities of a modern gaming engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm affraid that you will have to learn to accept that Battlefront is (atleast currently) a VERY ! small company...or you will be continuesly dissapointed...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, RepsolCBR said:

I'm affraid that you will have to learn to accept that Battlefront is (atleast currently) a VERY ! small company...or you will be continuesly dissapointed...

 

I've only ever been disappointed with Black Sea: game world too small for modern conflict / no ability to MANEUVER units in a shoe box map, poor game performance and ugly graphics on a modern gaming rig (especially compared to other games on the market), and the lack of COOP multiplayer.

Edited by Apocalypse 31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Just for some clarity about some of the issues you have noted  to be factually correct  there is not a 4 km limitation. You can actually make a map 3km x 6km. The 4km comes from people tending to make square maps. Whether that matters in most real world situations that you would necessarily have a 4km line of sight is a whole other issue.  It is a tactical game not an operational one. We push the envelope, but it isn’t what CM is meant to be nor what the code will support  

The graphics for CMBS are the same as for every other current CM title so why you are only disappointed in CMBS is confusing

comparing other games on the market and only rating CM based on the graphics is kind of like saying my truck is nowhere near as fast as a Ferrari and therefore is not as good a vehicle. It  doesn’t work so well when the main reason you bought the truck was to haul lumber. 

Fegardless it is is what it is.  We all want more out of the game. We may eventually get more. For now we settle for what it is because the alternative is those other games with nice graphics that frankly suck compared to CM.  Someday maybe we will get the best of both worlds., but in terms of the OP any expectations you had were never supported by anything BF has ever said about CMSF2 .  We have been aware of that ever since they announced they would be upgrading the title. 

 

In other words, don’t rain on our parade 😁

Edited by sburke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, sburke said:

We push the envelope, but it isn’t what CM is meant to be nor what the code will support  

It's not "pushing the envelope". 

Modern Tanks and ATGMs can engage direct fire further than 4k. That's still a tactical fight and NOT operational.

7 minutes ago, sburke said:

The graphics for CMBS are the same as for every other current CM title so why you are only disappointed in CMBS is confusing

Because I was expecting progression with Shock Force 2. Not a Shock Force modification with a AAA price tag.

 

7 minutes ago, sburke said:

For now we settle for what it is because the alternative is those other games with nice graphics that frankly suck compared to CM

It's about the performance and capabilities - not just the graphics. I'd be ok with the terrible shadows, anti aliasing, and paper-like infantry animations if the game was able to run at a solid 60 fps on a decent sized map suitable for MODERN MANEUVER.

Edited by Apocalypse 31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheesh... might as well demand that we ship every game with a pony while you are at it :D

Look, it's pretty simple.  Expecting us to match games with $50,000,000 budgets is your right, but if that's what you expect then why are you here?  We're NEVER going to put out such a game.  Ever.  You're wasting your time complaining about something that's just not possible.

While we can't compete with the big budget game graphics, we can compete with the game play.  At least for those who want highly realistic combined arms combat.  There is no other game on the market, past or present, that comes close to delivering what we deliver.  Not even 1 player vs. 1 player, not to mention cooperative play.

So if you don't care about gameplay, but do care about huge pretty maps with multiple players, then Combat Mission isn't for you. 

Note about map size and engagement ranges.  The notion that massive maps are a prerequisite for modern combat is false.  Engagement ranges have changed very little since WW2.  A King Tiger was just as capable of hitting a target at 4km as an Abrams.  What's changed is the effectiveness and flexibility of engagement at longer ranges, making a 4km shot from an Abrams far more likely to hit a target at 4km than a King Tiger.  But check out modern AARs from real warfare and you're going to be hard pressed to find 4km engagements and even those aren't going to be all that fun to simulate (i.e. tank sniping at long range is BORING).  The desire for larger maps is fine, just don't confuse opinion with fact when it comes to their necessity.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Sheesh... might as well demand that we ship every game with a pony while you are at it

 I didn't realize asking for a game that runs smoothly in 2018 is like asking for a pony?

 

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Engagement ranges have changed very little since WW2.

You may be the expert in game development, but I beg to differ on this point, and disagree, given my personal experiences, knowledge, and training in the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Steve, 

Is CMx2 able to support larger maps? I can't get Radzy-Award to load which is 5.5 x 5.5 km. I as well am hoping for news, plans, or even wild somewhat feasable speculation on (engine?) improvements so we can see larger maps. 

Art

Edited by Artkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

 I didn't realize asking for a game that runs smoothly in 2018 is like asking for a pony?

You have a laundry list of demands and no appreciation for the economics of producing a game like this (i.e. tiny market, huge demands).  You also have an extreme definition of what constitutes an acceptable game.  So yes, in my view you're asking for a pony.

Quote

You may be the expert in game development, but I beg to differ on this point, and disagree, given my personal experiences, knowledge, and training in the subject.

Illuminate us with your powerful insights, then.  Because so far I haven't been too impressed with your postings.  For example, 2007 isn't 1990s, nor is it early 2000s.  Simple facts, simple math and yet you seem to struggle with them.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Steve, 

Is CMx2 able to support larger maps? I can't get Radzy-Award to load which is 5.5 x 5.5 km. I as well am hoping for news, plans, or even wild somewhat feasable speculation on (engine?) improvements so we can see larger maps. 

Art

CMSF2 uses the Game Engine 4 code.  There are no improvements to the game engine with this release.  As for the future, we'll have to see.  We've steadily increased the map size over time but are having difficulties moving it much beyond where it is now AND have it run for most people under most circumstances.  The amount of data that is pushed around is the problem.  The bigger the maps, the more data that needs to be stored and manipulated.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's always those people who will demand the game should accommodate a division's worth of troops, gargantuan maps, helicopter insertions, fights in sewer systems and beach landings, following the maxim 'Nothings succeeds like excess'. Its like complaining that a Lexus sedan can't also operate as a dump truck and a school bus. Sure dump trucks and school buses are handy, but that's not what the Lexus was designed for. and BTW. CM now does beach invasions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Illuminate us with your powerful insights, then

You and I used to talk via email. It was after my first Iraq deployment in 2007. Aside from two additional deployments (also on Strykers) life has been busy.

 

Edit - I never had the chance to send you that pair of ASUs that you asked me for.

Edited by Apocalypse 31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

And for Mikey, plenty of times I've squeezed regimental sized elements of the 1st AD into CMBS maps. It works!! If you turn off the screen and come back in 4 hours :D

Edited by Artkin
Odd double post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

There's always those people who will demand the game should accommodate a division's worth of troops, gargantuan maps, helicopter insertions, fights in sewer systems and beach landings, following the maxim 'Nothings succeeds like excess'. Its like complaining that a Lexus sedan can't also operate as a dump truck and a school bus. Sure dump trucks and school buses are handy, but that's not what the Lexus was designed for. and BTW. CM now does beach invasions

I'm not demanding upper-tactical or lower operational maneuver. Modern engagements just normally occurre across larger areas than depicted in game due to better acquisition systems and weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×