I am not typically a negative person but...wow

[spybaz]

This is 2005AD, right? Not 1999...

I really felt a need to post this to see if it's just me or is the terrain in this game unbelievably terrible?

While I appreciate the ability to play demos for free I feel that this game (sim?) has been a complete waste of time. While the driving feels somewhat like what I would believe to be driving a heavy, tracked vehicle to be like (I really don't kow though - I have never even driven a bulldozer), the terrain could not be more boring even with the graphics cranked to the max (at 1600x1200 too!). I have a great frame rate but the game engine is diabolical (IMO).

You would think that for such a slooooow paced game that the graphis would be awesome but alas, IMHO, they are a joke. Look at Joint Ops or Battlefield 2 or Far Cry terrain and then take a look at the scenery on the 'driving' mission on the demo. I just had to laugh and then remove this [insert negative description of this game] from my PC.

That said - I realize it is a demo and that the full game may have potential but is the purpose of a demo not to show a games capabilities?

Thoughts?

[Gpig]

Ever heard of constructive criticism?

That's my thought.

Gpig

P.S. Did you play the game? Or just look at the ground?

[Officer Meatbeef]

This is 2005AD, right? Not 1999...

It is?! Well now what the hell am I supposed to do with all these "Don't Catch the Millenium Bug!" novelty PC face masks?

I really felt a need to post this to see if it's just me or is the terrain in this game unbelievably terrible?

Probably not just you (unfortunately), but nah, the terrain ain't half-bad. We'll get to that in a second.

While I appreciate the ability to play demos for free I feel that this game (sim?) has been a complete waste of time.

Yes, it is a game that is primarily a sim. The two are not mutually exclusive?

I have a great frame rate but the game engine is diabolical (IMO).

Heheh, ok, I do like the idea of describing a game engine as "diabolical". It really helps give engines the sort of menace they so sorely lack. "Who knows what sort of nefarious schemes that diabolical engine is plotting behind its beguiling cloak of dynamic light mapping?!"

You would think that for such a slooooow paced game that the graphis would be awesome but alas, IMHO, they are a joke. Look at Joint Ops or Battlefield 2 or Far Cry terrain and then take a look at the scenery on the 'driving' mission on the demo.

Well, ok, I've looked at the scenery for all these games (alright, I never got around to playing Joint Ops, and BF2 will not run on my vid card, but I've seen plenty of screenshots for both) and don't get me wrong, they are all very pretty. Far Cry probably still does the best jungle scenery in the business, Joint Ops has a good viewing distance mixed with some decent foliage, and Battlefield 2 is... well, just generally nice looking I guess.

However, and I'll try to limit this to strictly graphical terms since that seems to be all you care about, none of those games (well, maybe Joint Ops does, that's the one I'm most unfamiliar with) do dynamic time passage, destructable structures 'n (this is a big one) deformable terrain, dynamic weather and environmental effects, and (this is another big one) draw/viewing distance of more than 2 kilometers.

Joint Ops does apparently about 1km, Far Cry says 1.2km, and BF2 only draws about 500 meters! If you've been playing games for any length of time, you should be well aware by now that even a few dozen meters of extra viewing distance means you'll have to make some sacrifices on other graphical features. Those other games can get away with it, but for a simulation of real, modern tank combat, you need all the viewing distance you can get. Welcome to the eternal issue of graphical tradeoffs.

And speaking of tradeoffs, that's all disregarding the issue that a (small) (Russian!) developer trying to make a fairly detailed sim with full ballistics, accurate penetration and armour modelling, AI capable of operating these beasts in a fairly believable manner, and all the oodles other stuff that is needed to make up actual gameplay can only spend so much time on making the pictures look a bit prettier for the small percentage of the audience whose system could even paint those pretty pictures in a playable manner.

And one other thing... even in the photo-realistic glory of the real world, there are a whole hell of a lot of places that actually look really drab and boring. Trust me, I come from one of them.

I just had to laugh and then remove this [insert negative description of this game] from my PC.

Ok, there's not really a nice way to say this... if you honestly just removed a game from your system after, what, 5 minutes just because the imagery didn't excite you, then you are a excellent example of one of the big problems in gaming today, and I wish you would go away because you quite frankly make me very sad.

That said - I realize it is a demo and that the full game may have potential but is the purpose of a demo not to show a games capabilities?

Sure it is. Here's the funny thing though; whereas a game's graphical capabilities can be shown off just fine via screenshots and videos, you can't really bottle up little bits of actual gameplay and send them out discretely every week for people to salivate over. So the primary purpose of releasing a playable demo is to let people sample how the game plays. In other words, show the game's capabilities in what actually matters!

Thoughts?

Sometimes, but then I just apply a hammer until they fade away into a soothing buzzing noise.

[spybaz]

It was constructive. You have got me on my soap box now

The points of my post were:

1) To let the devs know that the bar for terrain graphics has been raised so if/when they bring out "Balkans on Fire II" that they will asses the game engine for it's terrain graphics - maybe then I will (and many other gaming connisseurs - I'm 40 yo been gaming since the 80's) will consider purchasing it. until then I am basically not inclined to play it due to the poor terrain - I have other, better 'looking' games to play.

2) I wanted other people's opinions too.

e.g.- "you should play it for a while - the sim aspect is awesome" or "while the terrain sucks the physics are awesome" or "wait until you see a tank blowing up", etc..

While I appreciate your valueless response I feel that is is just that. It is, in fact, a non-constructive criticizm of my post. Thanks.

I play games quite a lot (actually a lot more than I would care to admit to anyone that knows me). I have a pretty good system and I download 2-3 demos a week on average, wherever I can find them and I tend to purchase a game once a month (that's a minimum). I am not really a person who attempts to complete games but I lean towards the enjoyment and experience of realism (no fantasy for me - e.g I hate Halo on XBox) that I can get from gaming because, fundamentally, I am lazy bastard and will never try to drive a tank, fly an F16 (Ala Falcon 4.0 modded to the hilt), direct a battle, drive a souped up sports car, fire an M16, etc., in real life. I have every peripheral you can think of when it comes to gaming and I think I can say I own virtually every realism/sim game that has come out over the last 10 yrs so I do consider myself a bit of a connisseur of PC video games (even though the corollary of that is that I probably need to get a life) and I would like to think that the devs take heed of people from every walk of life who asses video games so that they can improve their game engines. If their intention is not to listen to criticism and learn from it then they are not really game "developers" [One that develops] are they?

So, if anyone has any input for me I am ears open. In the interim the game has been deleted from my system. I'll check out version II if/when it comes out.

Yo

[spybaz]

Officer Meatbeef - thank you.

That is exactly the kind of response I was looking for. I lied when I said I had deleted the game because I was really waiting for input like this.

I now have a reason to play the game from the few pointers you have given as to what is involved in the game besides the visual aspects. I was curious as to the physics and sim aspect of it.

I do appreciate tha this is a small outfit that developed the game/sim and my criticism is not of their ability (I completey admire and appreciate what gaming devs do - after all playing the games that they make is my hobby) just simply one aspect of the game - the terrain.

Thanks, again.

I will come back after some playing time to post my opinions.

[Kobra]

Spybaz, one thing to consider - and sim developers know this - sim fans usually have ancient hardware. Most of my pals into sims are using old Geforce4 cards - or older - and none of them are over 2ghz in processor speed. (while here I sit with multiple 3Ghz+ boxes with 6X series Nvidias)

Second, you are right, the graphics are definately 4-5 year old in quality. Deforming terrain or otherwise, they speak of a garage game effort.

With all due respect, you need to look at this game as a garage game effort by a small indy developer. As such, it can never - ever - measure up to the standards of productions costing millions of dollars with 70 people working on them.

Price wise, I haven't ordered it because I consider $35+Shipping to be much to high. For a garage game, i'd happily pay $19-25 for it, no more. At this point and because the demo didn't enthrall me, I will sit on the sidelines and hope they drop the price to meet the quality of the game.

[Arklight]

I will sit on the sidelines and hope they drop the price to meet the quality of the game.

How do you put a price on the quality of a game without actually playing the full version?

Demos are only a tiny tidbit of what a game is about and usually not totally indicative of the full version.

[Moon]

Spybaz, Officer Meatbeef I think gave an excellent answer about comparing graphics. Adding the same level of detail that a first person shooter like FarCry has to a game with a totally different focus and entirely different requirements would make it unplayable. It would also mean that you would not be playing T72 right now. And perhaps never. Because the team of people and artists to create such a game could not be paid for.

When you compare T72 to other tank sims out there (not there are all that many, ahem), it sets a totally new standard. What is more important for us as a publisher that values gameplay way way way more than graphics: T72's visuals support and contribute to the gameplay, deliver all the important aspects and even some more, but do not reduce the game to pure eyecandy. T72 is a great mix of playability, fun and explosions with just enough realism thrown in to not put me off like other games with health bars and med packs do. In my opinion at least.

Kobra, you're also entitled to your opinion of course, even if I personally think that it's total nonsense (pick any game that's 4-5 years old and show me a similar graphics engine; in fact, pick any game that is 1 year old with these viewing distances, details, deformable terrain, destructible buildings and so on...)

Anyway, luckily for us and other tank sim fans, the value of a product is determined by a market consisting of many thousands of people, not just you. I say luckily because with the cost of producing the goods, sustainging a 30 head development team, and the infarstructure to get the game to you, selling the game at $25 would not be possible. Which would mean that we wouldn't be here, and that tank fans would still be waiting for something else besides Panzer Elite and SB1 and other tank sims which are, what, more than 5 years old now?

So while you're waiting for a multi-million dollar release in the future that does everything so much better, in the meantime I think I will move some furniture into this garage here for me and my friends - it's getting quite crowded actually

Martin

[klugman]

Originally posted by Moon:

Kobra, you're also entitled to your opinion of course, even if I personally think that it's total nonsense (pick any game that's 4-5 years old and show me a similar graphics engine; in fact, pick any game that is 1 year old with these viewing distances, details, deformable terrain, destructible buildings and so on...)

"Soldner" has both deformable terrain, and destructable buildings. Although in my personal opinion the game sux.

[Destraex]

I love the graphics and the deformable terrain.

Just compare the graphics to Rome Total War and you will see what I mean.

This game has great potential and we have not seen the more interesting landscapes yet - forests and the like.

http://www.battlefront.com/products/t72/screenshots/images/top44.jpg

I recognise that in order to have even ww2 tank battles you need to be engaging at 1.5-3km. I have always wanted a game that could do this.

It was one of the major upsets in a game like close combat ad certainly tanks would rarely fight like they do in battlefield2 which is complete BS but I still play it for the coop experience.

The only game that comes close to this and is yet to be topped is operation flashpoint. However the vehicles in opfp are still very arcade and the terrain although more varied is much worse at ground level.

[Arklight]

-Destraex

WWII Tank combat is excellent in WWII Online. You might want to check that one out if you are interested in that style of play in a very team oriented environment.

I have been playing it since release and it has become a COMPLETELY different game. It went from being a total mess at release to probably one of the most immersive games I have ever played (if not THE most immersive game I have ever played). New graphics, new GUI, new vehicles, new weapons, stat based rank on a world scale, etc..,etc...Not to mention it is continually evolving and has one of the most dedicated communities I have ever been apart of or seen.

It is simply amazing now.

[Hub]

I've played wargames of various kinds for more than forty years- it doesn't generally take me long to figure out which games that I bought were a waste of my money and time. T-72 BoF is neither.

Is it perfect? No, it has some things wrong with it- but nothing that I found that was a fun killer. The graphics do require a lot of horsepower, but I was able to find a balance beween looks and performance that is quite acceptable, even with my very mediocre video card. Maybe it's not totally a sim or an arcade game, but I would tend towards calling it much more of the first (with all the realism settings on) than the second.

It loaded easily, and it has been stable- I haven't had any freezes, lock-ups, or crashes of any kind. I've been playing it on my home LAN regularly with two other people, and there have been no problems at all. I don't find the game slow paced either, at least when playing multiplayer- you have to be moving and on your toes all the time, or you're toast.

The editors looked intimidating at first, but once I printed out the .pdf files and fiddled around with the editors a little, they aren't that hard to use at all. Making minor changes to existing scenarios, including some terrain changes, really takes no time at all. The AI scripting is quite extensive- some pretty detailed new scenarios could be made without a lot more effort involved.

I think I've spent US $35 on worse things in my life.

[klugman]

I think 72BoF is a start of something new in the Armored warfare area in simulations. Some say the graphics arent as good as they believe they should be. Look at Steel Beast, nasty software 3d enviroment. It is not good because of the graphics, but because of the Simulation. T72BoF has great potential. Just needs some tlc.

[MikeyD]

Shooter game players (and 99% of games out there are shooters) always seem to initially have issues with handling the pace of accurate tactical sims. In a real world environment targets just don't jump out from behind every other structure simply in order to be shot!

Take BFC's other product Combat Mission for example. A more-or-less Company level tactical sim. Oftentimes the opening scenario moves are deadly dull as you poke about for the enemy. But once battle is joined there don't seem to be enough seconds in a minute to juggle all that has to be attended to! But the work you put into your initial deployment often makes all the difference between success and failure.

Sims vs shooters. Takes a different mindset.

[Dennis50]

That's what I was waiting for someone to say ...

Tactical Sim ..

Thank you MikeyD.

Regards,

Gunz

[Forgot_to_duck]

OK my 2 cents worth maybe not even that much. Game content, clear instuctions, game play, game replay ability, stable environment, easy controls, fun and finally graphics.

For me I am clueless when it comes to tanks and the operations. The T-72 demo lacks good tutorial for explaining to me how to play. This will keep me from ordering the game.

I purchased Dangerous Waters strickly from the demo and tried to follow the tutorial demo's. No one can hear you scream underwater. A tutorial built into the game for quick hands on instructions. Man, I really do suck as a sub commander.

In contrast Combat Mission's instruction manual and tutorial make getting into play fast and painless. Yes CM is not the same game as T-72 or DW but a nice tutorial would be appreciated. There are a few tactical challenged and weapon inept people out here and we need help.

Forgot

[Denwad]

I was a little frustrated by the T-72 demo after the hotfix.

I couldn't figure out how the leopard was accurately striking me through the trees.

then it hit me! NV sights :E duh!

after that it only takes a few hits on the leopard to kill it

[M1A1TC]

This game pretty accuralty portraits a way real tank handles- I thought of my days as a tank crewmember. The commands, and the way the tank AI responds to them is good.

The graphics are very good compared to any tank sim out there.

My biggest beef with the demo is the "diabolical" control scheme. Is it just me, or do 99% of Russian games have horrible controls(nothing personal, I am Russian)

Seems like Russian game developers are stuck in the past, and just dont use intuitive controls. I am baffled

[mike_the_wino]

Originally posted by spybaz:

While I appreciate your valueless response I feel that is is just that. It is, in fact, a non-constructive criticizm of my post. Thanks.

Oh, I get sarcasm. :mad:

Having never driven a tank nor designed a game, and since everyone else is chiming in....

I like the full version of this game. Being a BFC fanboy I bought this game prior to the demo. I am also lacking any military experience, so I can't comment on the 'realism' of this game. But keep in mind this is a GAME or a SIM....not real life.

All that being said, I like this game in that it challenges me to keep my mind on the fact that tanks are 'mobile field assets' and not bunkers, or fixed emplacements. I find myself mostly driving to, what I perceive as, favorable firing positions and letting my crew do the work. Then I pull back, re-position, and try to assist my AI assets as needed. I still can't master the gunner's or TC position to the point that I can best the AI in those regards but I like the way they respond to threats.

.....fundamentally, I am lazy bastard and will never try to drive a tank, fly an F16 (Ala Falcon 4.0 modded to the hilt), direct a battle, drive a souped up sports car, fire an M16, etc., in real life.

Wow, what the hell? When I was in Las Vegas for the first time I made a special trip to a local firing range to shoot a full auto MP5 IRL so that I could see how reality stacks up against the Rainbow 6/ Ghost Recon games stacked up. Within the range distances I found them to be fairly accurate. Unfortunately, they wouldn't turn me loose on the Vegas strip to see how close I was @ the 100m head shots.

If you don't like the game...fine. But your posts seem a bit snide and I don't agree with your assessment.

T-72 is a good buy, IMO.

[SuomiKp]

Originally posted by Arklight:

-Destraex

WWII Tank combat is excellent in WWII Online. You might want to check that one out if you are interested in that style of play in a very team oriented environment.

I have been playing it since release and it has become a COMPLETELY different game. It went from being a total mess at release to probably one of the most immersive games I have ever played (if not THE most immersive game I have ever played). New graphics, new GUI, new vehicles, new weapons, stat based rank on a world scale, etc..,etc...Not to mention it is continually evolving and has one of the most dedicated communities I have ever been apart of or seen.

It is simply amazing now.

I think that the tank combat is really nice too , but there's one thing that bug's me it's that the game is about camp depot's , forward bases ot army bases.

I hope they will do something about that soon

[renegaat]

hi,

just wanted say that the one thing for me this sim

is missing is immersion . when i fire up a new game usually within in 10 minutes or so i know i will like it or not. this one i didn't like at all from the start; I think the interface is bad , I don't like the graphics , the performance and I dont like the sounds; I have been a tank gunner for 2 years in the german army and imho no tank sim ever got it completely right to model the sounds correctly (including steal beast , a game that i love). I miss interior views (yeah I know, but I just need them ) and I dont like the setting . All this adds up to the 'no immersion' effect which kills the game for me, even though this game might model tank combat very realistic

and might have the most realistic so and so. Just doesn't work for me . So why did I buy it you ask ? because I just love tank sims and I have have them all

take care

joern

[Moon]

renegaat, interesting the contrast in your post and this one here:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=46;t=000232

Anyway, thanks for the support you show by purchasing the game!

Martin

[Arklight]

Originally posted by SuomiKp:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Arklight:

-Destraex

WWII Tank combat is excellent in WWII Online. You might want to check that one out if you are interested in that style of play in a very team oriented environment.

I have been playing it since release and it has become a COMPLETELY different game. It went from being a total mess at release to probably one of the most immersive games I have ever played (if not THE most immersive game I have ever played). New graphics, new GUI, new vehicles, new weapons, stat based rank on a world scale, etc..,etc...Not to mention it is continually evolving and has one of the most dedicated communities I have ever been apart of or seen.

It is simply amazing now.

I think that the tank combat is really nice too , but there's one thing that bug's me it's that the game is about camp depot's , forward bases ot army bases.

I hope they will do something about that soon </font>