Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Steiner14

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,410

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Steiner14

    The Wrong Left Turn and the Uncanny Valley

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Michael,

    imo the key sentence in your interesting post is this:

    Abstraction is good.
    I already had written my opinion about that in the gamespot thread, before i came across your post.

    I agree abstraction is good. And it should only be abandoned, if the less abstracted visualization REALLY works.

    I still remember when Steve mentioned, that CMx2 will have 1:1 representation. Beautiful news, but i was sceptical, because i had the feeling, that this only works, if it is done well. Most abstractions that worked in CMx1 so great, will have to be visualized. And a proper visualizetion means a proper underlying model. And that means lots of development time.

    But i would have never dreamt about, if CMx2 will have 1:1 representation, that walls, stupid rectangles with some textures on them, will be abstracted!

    If i would have known that, i could have told immediately, it will not work for me because of the distorted impression that abstraction it will create for me.

    IMO that is where CM really shines: the models, the abstraction and the visualization just fits perfectly together. Where the abstraction becomes visible, then there is nothing that disturbs your imagination, to see more than you see on the screen. You lose one soldier representation and you imagine the rest.

    You shoot through walls, but since you only command visual representations, this is no problem. It fits.

    But if you see single soldiers, even reloading when the magazine is empty, and then they shoot through walls, the player has a problem due to the obvious distortion of the detailed visual representation, giving no room for imagination, and the necessary imagination regarding the wall.

    Or doors and windows. They are represented visually, but then somehow they are abstractions.

    The eye sees something different, than the brain has to cope with.

    This was not the case in CMx1.

    0

    Gamespots crappy 4.5 review..

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Steve,

    Just like we told people looking at CMBO that they were wrong for wanting hexes and 2D, just like for people playing CMBB that they were wrong to oppose the improvements we made.
    you always said, realism is one main aspect of Battelfront vision. Great. That made CM CM. Therefore it was a logical development, to get rid of hexes (IF you have a better solution - and you had). It's also a step torwards more realism, to place the action in a 3D-environment (IF you can do it well - and you did!).

    Those who were criticizing for getting rid of the old shoes, were doing this because of emotional aspects, not because of logical facts.

    But contrary to CMx1, there are now sometimes steps back in realism - in, for me as wargamer, absolutely crucial areas. CMx1 abstracted things where they could be abstracted, but what it showed was congruent with the abstraction. The player imagines the rest easily thanks to this congruency.

    IMO in CMSF this congruency between abstraction and the action is lost. Now single bullets are counted, but they can fly through walls. For me this is worse, than shwoing no bullets at all and only a counter and sound indicating shots.

    Or the collision detection of vehicles. I don't need the hundreds polygons a Stryker consists of, if it can drive deeply into walls or other vehicles. The CMx1 model with some shadowing would have been sufficient for me - but an improved pathfinding algo, THAT would have been great. But also instead of MORE realism in that regard, we have hundreds of polygons with LESS realism.

    You always said, realism comes first. But CMSF isn't a step ahead in realism in general. In certain areas it is much worse, or the changed visual representation destroy the congruency between abstraction and imagination. Complaining about that has nothing to do with whining about lost hexes when CMBO was created.

    0

    Gamespots crappy 4.5 review..

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by MarkEzra:

    I think that CM:SF ability to model each projectile, model effect of each hit and miss, model each individual on the battlefield is a huge step forward.

    It is my sense that what separates "Wargamer" from "game enthusiast" is the obsessive need for accuracy. CM:SF delivers just that.
    Modelling of single projectiles only makes sense, if the rest of the game is accurate to a certain level.

    But projectiles flying through walls, through terrain is definately not accuracy wargamers want.

    Have soldiers in a Stryker? Well drive the Stryker representation into the representation of the house and let the pixeltruppen safely move out of the vehicle. Accuracy?

    You must be joking.

    0

    Gamespots crappy 4.5 review..

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by MarkEzra:

    I think that CM:SF ability to model each projectile, model effect of each hit and miss, model each individual on the battlefield is a huge step forward.

    It is my sense that what separates "Wargamer" from "game enthusiast" is the obsessive need for accuracy. CM:SF delivers just that.
    Modelling of single projectiles only makes sense, if the rest of the game is accurate to a certain level.

    But projectiles flying through walls, through terrain is definately not accuracy wargamers want.

    Have soldiers in a Stryker? Well drive the Stryker representation into the representation of the house and let the pixeltruppen safely move out of the vehicle. Accuracy?

    You must be joking.

    0

    LOS / LOF problems

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by SlowMotion:

    A gamey trick these wall problems make possible (this is from v1.02):

    Often when your infantry jumps out of vehicles near the enemy you get many casualties before they manage to run into the nearest building.

    When a Stryker was moving between buildings I noticed sometimes parts of it were inside the building. So I decided to try if there's a way to dismount without casualties. Reversed the Stryker inside the building and then told the infantry to jump out smile.gif

    http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z213/r31070021/CMSF/stryker_dismount.gif

    :eek:

    But therefore we have now a 1:1 soldier representation down to single bullets...

    A tactical simulation obviously must set priorities... :mad: :mad: :mad:

    Knowing about such facts reduces my wish to start a new SF-battle to almost zero.

    0

    Gamespots crappy 4.5 review..

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by panzermartin:

    4.5? This is so harsh. I agree it must be his 8800 card, because graphics are fine with no glitches if you are lucky to have the right pc combo.

    Are you serious? We have to be lucky that software we buy will run on our computers?

    If it's impossible that all combinations are tested, then the absolute minimum is, to test and develop on the most widely spread modern systems!

    Hideous visuals? The guys have done a tremendous step forward in this part of the game, with fantastic models, crisp and clear details and a great pallete of colors with no fancy hollywood shades.

    The shades look awful on many computers. Many objectives have statically turned self shading off, to get some useful framerates at all.

    The game is unfinished, true, and this is probably why he rates it so low...but 4.5? A 6.5-7 would be fairer.
    Oh, the car is unfinished. The airbags and the second brake circuit will be included in the next service.

    But if that is the case, i want them to tell me, BEFORE i buy it. No word from BFC that the game is in early beta.

    And to me this is even more a problem, since the small but fine community was kept in disbelieve.

    Hope BFC wont be disappointed with the negative reviews, I guess they were kind of prepared with all the bugs and all.
    They should have better thought twice about the disappointment in their community, with members that waited 4 years in patience, members that upgraded their computers in believe and trust into BFC - and that have now 10 FPS with their newly updates computers. Not a single word from BFC, to wait. Instead it was spread that Nvidia is the way to go. No warning words, that the game is not tested at all with modern cards.

    And you worry, that BFC could become disappointed about negative reviews? :eek:

    Base engine is all that matters with this release,
    Then i must have missed that post...

    I dont mind they released it as is, I couldnt wait any longer and I'd be happy to help shaping CMSF into a great wargame. 1.02 shows that they have the energy to pay attention to our observations/suggestions.
    I'm afraid, there will not be enough time for them to fix it - they had 4 (four!) years to get the basiscs right and couldn't - and now you expect them to do that in a few weeks?

    Obviously all development time was wasted for the (for wargamers) unnessecary 1:1 representation.

    And on the other hand, what came out is ofcourse not good enough for mainstream gamers, to be attracted by the graphics. The game looks ugly compared with those, it obviously tries with 1:1 representation to compare with and for the real wargamers, the important basics, like shooting through walls, plausible TacAI behaviour or pathfinding were not improved - they even got worse, partly much worse! Three steps back behind CMx1 in important aspects.

    And you wonder about bad reviews?

    They freely have chosen to sit between all chairs - and i have to admit, also my patience is coming to an end and i'm losing more and more interest in the further development of the game.

    IMO what we see with CM:SF is a typical mistake of developers losing the roots. By trying to make all much better, they forget what works already perfect and what parts need to be really worked on (anyone remember about the old wished for grid-overlay, full game replays, co-op play, campaigns?).

    They now have a new engine, but that is not capable to show a grid overlay. No fullgame replays. And not even short replays in realtime. How long will people be satisfied about that? How long will it last, until the invisible terrain elevations become disturbing?

    EDIT: that brings back the memories about the hull-down discussion of the PzIV and the hope, the new engine will model turret height. That was the direction CM was aiming at and everyone hoped was going for. Now we have responses, that there are abstractions and we have bullets flying through terrain. I doubt discussions about turret height will ever appear in CMx2...[/EDIT]

    Basics, that are not there and without any hope they will be inlcuded in the next few patches.

    IMO they already destroyed the enourmous reputation CM had - a reputation that could have been used to win more players, with up to date graphics, but with keeping the good old basics solid. I really doubt, their plans about modules and selling numbers can work now.

    [ August 11, 2007, 03:53 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

    0

    Gamespots crappy 4.5 review..

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    What do some of you expect? Most reviewers need to have the latest graphics card generation and not a slow one.

    So it's clear, that the game will get sashed, if it produced 10 frames on a 8800GTX. What would you do? Try system after system until you find one, where the game runs smoothly?

    That's inexcuseable that these problems weren't sorted out earlier. Hey, they weren't even detected in the beta-phase!

    The game was published as clear early Beta, without naming it and it doesn't run well on modern cards. What else do you need to wake up and see the reviews in a more objective light? Being punished for that in reviews, i can completely understand. It's sad, that BFC did so.

    Potential or promises gladly do not count that much. What counts is, what you have now.

    0

    LoS Tool, Again...

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    We're not so sure about bringing back the LOS tool. There are, however, some exceptions where it would be useful.

    If good things are eliminated, without an equally good or better replacement for it, then the overall quality has to sink.

    WEGO players don't need less, we need more tools to judge elevations better (i.e. terrain grid).

    0

    Shadows looking rough

    in Combat Mission: Shock Force Tech Support

    Posted

    I'm afraid the problems lie deep in the engine. BFC seems to have chosen a completely different, unusual path, which should work on API-paper but no other game seems to work that way and now they are alone and don't know, how to fix it.

    Or the awful shadows: i have the suspicion, they were chosen, to keep the framerate at playable levels. Or the statement, that an overlay-grid, which was one of the most important wishes since CMBO, would eat too much CPU-power(!), only completes the picture for me.

    If i look at the trailers of the upcoming Quake:Enemy Territory, which is an OpgenGL game too, i don't understand why they tried to invent the wheel on their own and use function calls no one else seems to use. Especially as small company, it'S wise to stay in the programming paths that are prooved to work.

    After several days, there is not even the confirmation, that the ATI-bugs were solved. :mad: The last info i know about is, that they are testing if the workarounds work.

    No emergency-patch so far, and not even signs of hope for the 8800 NVidia players...

    I don't have a good feeling anymore and i'm quite sure, they would have to rewrite parts of the engine, to make it highly performant.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...