Survey: Do Graphics matter much in CMs case?

[Badger73]

I think this thread went from a survey about what people think about the graphics to one about what people want graphically. <snipped>

Okay, so surveying what I think about CMx2 vanilla graphics:

1) They were good enough in the demo's to suck me into buying the games

2) Vanilla CMFI looks better than vanilla CMBfN to me.

3) I load all of Aris' graphics mods when playing and am very pleased with them.

4) The great majority of mods (except scenarios and campaigns) I use are the graphical ones.

Graphics really enhance my ability to enjoy and immerse me in the game much better. However attractive graphics are, they provide absolutely no value to lousy games. ("One can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear".) As was better said earlier, CMx2 itself is a champagne and caviar wargame. The silver and crystal place settings only enhance what is already very good.

[sfhand]

I have recently lowered my graphical settings to speed up frame rates and loading times (this is with a very capable computer setup). Were development time to be spent on improving the graphic engine I would like to see it spent, as has been with v2.0, further optimizing performance while still making things look "prettier".

[Frankster65]

I have played most of CM's direct competitors, and I always find myself back 'home' with CM. The combination of graphics, gameplay, and fidelity of the simulation is unmatched IMO.

+1 Well said Sakai007. Same for me. I find Battlefront has found that perfect balance in this series. The fact that I can play a 3D tactical battle in rather large scale, battalion vs battalion with few if any stutters is mindblowing. It is a dream come true. The fact that I can create or recreate any tactical battle via the map editor and mission editor, allowing one to do this through these fabulous tools is another big plus. This is a thinking person's game, via tactics and teaching you tactics, it is a creative person's game via the editor and replay tool which allows one to create great AARs or movies. So much for so many here. The only thing I would advise BF (if they asked me) would be to improve the ingame sounds, both vehicle and weapons.

[Frankster65]

I'm reminded of the difference between silent film stars Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton. Chaplin is hailed as a genius and his work is studied in college cinema classes. But if you watch his films you may appreciate the technique but you rarely actually laugh. Buster Keaton, on the other hand, you laugh out loud. You hurt yourself from laughing. It seems a lot of big game titles are 'Charlie Chaplin' games - they deliberately wear their cleverness on their sleeve, you're too busy 'appreciating' the fancy technique to actually enjoy them. CM series are 'Buster Keaton' games, too busy enjoying them to bother 'appreciating' them.

Personally, my favorite was Harold Lloyd.

[Erwin]

The most important aspect is "content" and gameplay value. There were literally dozens, maybe hundreds of great-looking games in the last 10-15 years that only lasted a few weeks on my computer due to playability and content issues - eg: ARMA 2 is on its way out for me right now.

Many of us are still CM1 fans and if we had CM2 game engine and gameplay sophistication in CM1 we would still be happy playing a well-modded CM1 - even though a well-modded CM2 gamehas superior graphics.

With a small company like BF that has to make choices re where to invest time and money, improving the game engine/playability, (improving the confusing LOS and C2 aspects etc.) should be the first, second and third priorities... way ahead of graphics.

[Sublime]

Graphics are fine the way they are. The only thing that pulls me out of the simulation is when trees stick through vehicles or other vehicles or vehicles run over infantry. This is probably not easy to fix but I hope its somewhere near the top of the list of things to fix.

Id really like that but I dont think thats a realistic expectation any time soon. Imagine how much trouble they'd have coding Infantry to not get run over by friendly or enemy tanks, and coding tanks to avoid them. And people would endlessly complain it was too hard to manage.

Also the trees too, I'd rather see the AI stop moving the tanks hull to align with the turret and just shoot instead of worrying about whether they drive through trees. I just deal with it. In a perfect world though, of course it would be nice.

I definitely think damage graphics, and more animations for the troops dying, shooting ,etc would be really nice.

[Mexican Calf]

I'm sort of new here (a few weeks new to the entire series actually) but I feel like the graphics could use an update from their current state to a more modern video game. That said I don't want to stress the developers too much by asking this.

[hoolaman]

I think this thread went from a survey about what people think about the graphics to one about what people want graphically. I don't mind it at all because i agree to most of the things you guys are saying, such as better animations, visible damage on vehicles and now to put in my own saying. What about models for planes or helicopters, now that would be really cool just seeing Thunderbolts Swoop down and strafe men and vehicles.

Edit: So i think we can all agree new animations and visible damage

Generally the graphics are OK, but I think some of the graphics are a lot closer to the previous generations of CM games than they should be.

Buildings particularly look not too far removed from CMBO, there's very limited damage modelling, and extremely unrealistic damage modelling (eg bottom floor exterior wall is blown out but the wall above still stands).

A big omission is rubble and debris, which is everywhere in urban WWII photos. Also NO FIRE.

There's still crazy LOD problems with roads and terrain looking very different to their LOD, and the terrain mesh LOD popping the terrain in and out.

I've tried to convert friends to this game but they assume such a primitive looking game is not going to have much to offer. We all know that's not true but that is the attitude of people expecting grade A PS3 style production.

[poesel]

Id really like that but I dont think thats a realistic expectation any time soon. Imagine how much trouble they'd have coding Infantry to not get run over by friendly or enemy tanks, and coding tanks to avoid them. And people would endlessly complain it was too hard to manage.

My thoughts, too. But one can wish

That tanks can't hurt infantry by running over them has one advantage: you also can't run over enemy infantry. I'm quite happy that that isn't simulated.

What could be done is that tanks can knock down trees. Of course with a good chance to immobilze the tank. So you need to take care to plot your way through a forest and not just drive through like its the Autobahn.

[Michael Emrys]

So you need to take care to plot your way through a forest and not just drive through like its the Autobahn.

I've been doing that all along, ever since BN first came out. I know the game doesn't require it, but my sense of realistic immersion does.

Michael

[Sublime]

I wish too. I just don't see it happening soon. It definitely eventually has to be addressed somewhere somehow though. The tree through tank definitely was a compromise I saw BFC mention that somewhere. Running over infantry I dont know about I expect it's a similar story.

[umlaut]

Having played CM since CM:BB I am really enjoying the graphics of the CM2 engine. I spend a lot of time on ground level - just admiring the action. That said, I think there is still plenty of room for improvement. In my opinion, escpecially in these fields:

Building damage:

One slightly damaged building looks fine, but several damaged buildings look quite unconvincing, as the texture for heavy(?) damage seems to be the same hole in the wall - limited to the same floor. A heavily damaged five story building will thus have five identical holes in the each floor. I really hope that we will get more realistic looking damage here: For instance halfway collapsed buildings and empty burned out shells, where only the other walls remain standing - and preferably a combination of the two.

Vehicle damage:

I´d like to see knocked out vehicles that look more like they have been knocked out. Bent guns and armor plates, holes in the fuselage, wheels falling of - and the occasional flying turret Also one of the things I really liked about Achtung Panzer (though I don´t like it enough to actually play it) is the animations of tanks throwing a track.

Clipping:

Troops and vehicles being impaled by trees and tanks driving through each other doesn´t do much for the immersion.

Animations:

Generally, I´m quite happy with the animations of the pixeltruppen. But a few of them needs an update in my view. Especially the "hunt" animation which always makes me think of a bunch of guys that have had an accident in their underpants. I´d also like to see more variation in their postures: When you look at a squad kneeling behind a wall most of their postures are identical.

I am sure many of these things are already on BFC´s neverending to do list. I just hope they aren´t too far down. I also know that many of my wishes may present huge coding challenges, but that won´t prevent me from wishing.

So yes, I do think graphics matter. Both to me and to potentially new players. And I think it is nessecary to keep graphics up to date. I don´t play CM1 games at all any more and if CM2 hadn´t come along I would probably play Achtung Panzer now (and I am really glad I don´t have to). I have a couple of friends that looked at the graphics of CMBN and decided they didn´t want to try the game. And judging from what I read on forums, other potential customers do the same. That is really a shame, because CM is the best game around in my opinion.

[lordhedgwich]

hi im new to the cm series a few days actually =D and the only reason i tried it was i thought the graphics looked good on the screenshots. But i found out the game is amazing almost everything about it. I like the graphics the way they are. Some things i would like to see though: better fire, better explosions, blood on infantry, better building damage, and vehicle damage

[Erwin]

Have been playing ARMA for a week or so, and you CAN run over and kill infantry (both sides), the graphics are superior to CM2, things can catch on fire, there is blood, you can knock down trees, you can talk with NPC's, there are aircraft etc etc...

However, the gameplay is still superficial compared to to any CM game. And I am already fed up with ARMA after playing maybe three missions of the campaign. The bottom line is that all those graphics get boring real fast if you don't have decent/fairly realistic gameplay.

[jhmorneau]

What I would like to see in a near future is at least one alternative "knocked out" model for each vehicle available in the game.

What I'm not asking for, however, is special animations like flying turrets or decals for every hit.

Just something relatively easy to implement and that would make a huge difference as far as immersion is concerned !

Now if modders were allowed to produce some more alternative "knocked out" models, it would make BF job easier and our gaming experience better (even if I doubt that this possible).

[Childress]

Now if modders were allowed to produce some more alternative "knocked out" models, it would make BF job easier and our gaming experience better (even if I doubt that this possible).

Maybe, maybe not. Not knowing that a tank has been knocked out adds to the depth and uncertainty of the CM sim.

[$Pec5]

I think graphics were vastly improved from the CMx1 to the CMx2 game engine, which was one of the reasons why I decided to buy CMBN after playing CMBB for 5 years. They're good, but they're not great. Anybody not previously exposed to CMx1 games would look at CMx2 games and say "those graphics are not up to speed with every other computer game that comes out today."

I understand that myself as well as everyone else in this community appreciates the graphics of CMFI and CMBN tremendously, but I think that combat mission games, while beautifully simulating the tactical aspect (gameplay and historical authenticity) of a war game, can improve their simulation of the cinematics of war (way more animations, tanks that don't drive through trees or infantry, fire, damage on vehicles, etc). Both the tactics and the graphics, to me, are equally important, and while Battlefront, in my eyes, is a pioneer of the tactical aspect of a war game, they are far from pioneers graphically. I think that Battlefront should put more effort in developing graphics than developing the tactical aspects of the game because I feel as if there is more graphical work to be done on combat mission games than there is tactical work.

Graphics are certainly a priority to me and I am really looking forward to the CMx3 game engine and Bagration to see what interesting graphics upgrades take place.

[Wodin]

Actually, I am kind of glad they have stayed away from the blood and grusome dead bodies That we now see in many other games and movies.

Yes, some more might be ok. But I know what bodies would really look like after a Big arty strike, do I want it in the game - Its a area of debate.

I have started to find, that when the entertainment goes to that level. Am I entertained or am I being dehumanized. It is not entertaining and I am not proud to tell others that this is a game or for enjoyment.

So, just my view point

Yes but maybe sanitising war is even worse?

Doesn't need to be too much really..blood patch where they where hit would be good enough.

The hunt animation though a new one could be improved..most of all though damage decals and something none graphic related line formation..instead of the terrible tactic formation that is follow the leader..

[BigDog944]

I think graphics were vastly improved from the CMx1 to the CMx2 game engine, which was one of the reasons why I decided to buy CMBN after playing CMBB for 5 years. They're good, but they're not great. Anybody not previously exposed to CMx1 games would look at CMx2 games and say "those graphics are not up to speed with every other computer game that comes out today."

I understand that myself as well as everyone else in this community appreciates the graphics of CMFI and CMBN tremendously, but I think that combat mission games, while beautifully simulating the tactical aspect (gameplay and historical authenticity) of a war game, can improve their simulation of the cinematics of war (way more animations, tanks that don't drive through trees or infantry, fire, damage on vehicles, etc). Both the tactics and the graphics, to me, are equally important, and while Battlefront, in my eyes, is a pioneer of the tactical aspect of a war game, they are far from pioneers graphically. I think that Battlefront should put more effort in developing graphics than developing the tactical aspects of the game because I feel as if there is more graphical work to be done on combat mission games than there is tactical work.

Graphics are certainly a priority to me and I am really looking forward to the CMx3 game engine and Bagration to see what interesting graphics upgrades take place.

I agree that most people looking at this game would date it as at least five years old from a graphics standpoint, with certain aspects of it more like 10 years old (no damage decals on vehicles, for example).

Where I disagree is the statement that BF should be spending more time on graphics, in the sense that current Battlefront staff should not be. Charles and Steve have shown themselves to be masters of game design and the modelling of tactical combat. Charles has shown himself to be a somewhat below average 3D engine programmer. With current game industry standard animation practices better than what Battlefront is able to produce it should be a fairly simple step conceptually to bring in a new programmer to focus on the 3D engine and animations only so as to take CMx3 based games to the next level. Charles just needs to let go of that part of the code base. Tough to do from personal experience but likely necessary if any further gains are to be made from a graphics perspective.

All that is unlikely to fit BF's cost/benefit equation though, so we will just continue to love the baby we've got!

[Childress]

The hunt animation though a new one could be improved...instead of the terrible tactic formation that is follow the leader..

Are you saying that the Hunt command results in a single file formation? I don't believe that's the case; there's some spread.

[Wodin]

No that was just a general comment not aimed at Hunt..

[Lt Belenko]

Graphics don't matter - game play matters.

If graphics were the most important thing we'd all be playing FPS dejour.

If graphics mattered I would have been playing CMSFbetween 2008 and release of CMBN. Instead I chose CMBB.

If graphics mattered I'd have a heap pile of mods besides No opening music and grid lines.

If graphins mattered I wouldn't use gridlines- way too unrealistic.

Can CMx2 graphics use some fine tuning? sure it can. The 2 things that gets me the most are:

1. A tank that will have a tree protruding thru the hull. Collisions of 2 objects that then over lap.

2. The soldiers G.I. Joe hands. - permanently stuck in two positions. Even when they are performing buddy aid or something else - GIJoe hands.

[Apocal]

At least GI Joe had a Kung Fu grip.

[umlaut]

Graphics don't matter - game play matters.

If graphics were the most important thing we'd all be playing FPS dejour.

If graphics mattered I would have been playing CMSFbetween 2008 and release of CMBN. Instead I chose CMBB.

If graphics mattered I'd have a heap pile of mods besides No opening music and grid lines.

If graphins mattered I wouldn't use gridlines- way too unrealistic.

Can CMx2 graphics use some fine tuning? sure it can. The 2 things that gets me the most are:

1. A tank that will have a tree protruding thru the hull. Collisions of 2 objects that then over lap.

2. The soldiers G.I. Joe hands. - permanently stuck in two positions. Even when they are performing buddy aid or something else - GIJoe hands.

Well, your last two points kinda proves that graphics do matter to you too.

But we all have different preferences: I would never dream of using grid lines - they totally ruin the game for me. I would be nice to have them if they could be toggled on and of in-game, though.

[RockinHarry]

I think the stock graphics are generally well made and balanced. There could be some details improved here and there, but fortunately BFC leaves the fun to the modding folks so we can be kept Fuserized for the future.