MikeyD Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Wiggum: I skipped every game since the Normandy He hasn't bought the product in years and yet he feels himself qualified to speak on the topic? Good grief. Hey, I own an eighteen year old truck that I don't maintain. Maybe I'll go to the Ford website and whine about the state of auto manufacture today based on my experiences. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 I skipped every game since the Normandy game and will not buy Black Sea either. Paying 60$ for a 7 year old game with some new content is clearly not for everyone. That is not really a fair comment, that is like saying you will not buy a 2014 Porsche 911.....because it is a 50 year old design. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper117 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 The game is maxed out on my system and runs fine... not had a drama so far 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtHatred Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 I have no idea what you are running it on, but it doesn't run like crap on mine. And no it usually isn't faults in the engine, it is usually the fault of OS, driver issues and hardware that BF has to tweak for. No, for the final result we get, the way CMx2 produces visuals is painfully inefficient. A new game engine would be way easier for BFC to implement than their current homegrown solution, but it would still take significant time away from content creation, and for all of CMx2's faults, it does the job well enough. Of course, if BFC were to recreate Battle for Normandy with the Crysis3 or Unreal 4 Engines, I would launch all my money at them. Thats what it means. Its the same old CMx2 engine with some new features. The foundation of Black Sea game is a over 7 year old engine that has its expiry date long exceeded. But (and for a commercial company thats fine) it looks like Battlefront thinks they can make much more money creating module after module and charge money for feature updates to existing games (some call them patches). In the end, the customer decides if and when they will develop a real CMx3 engine. It will be the day that they notice that the CMx2 modules and games no longer sell that well... I skipped every game since the Normandy game and will not buy Black Sea either. Paying 60$ for a 7 year old game with some new content is clearly not for everyone. You are missing out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endymion Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 That is not really a fair comment, that is like saying you will not buy a 2014 Porsche 911.....because it is a 50 year old design. Actually that's not a fair comment because the current 911 has very little in common with a 911 from 50 years ago 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 No, for the final result we get, the way CMx2 produces visuals is painfully inefficient. I think we've taken enormous strides in the last couple years. The 2.0 version of the engine really was a major upgrade - the rendering pipeline was entirely rewritten. The 3.0 version of the engine included enormous structural and practical performance improvements. Anybody who says this is the same engine as it was seven years ago may not have been paying attention to what we've managed to pull off. The fact that we've got a policy of moving all of our old games up to the new engines is something I'm really happy about - I love CMBN and CMFI, and I'm glad I get to play with all the news bells and whistles I've put in. A new game engine would be way easier for BFC to implement than their current homegrown solution, but it would still take significant time away from content creation, and for all of CMx2's faults, it does the job well enough. Switching to a new engine would be an epic undertaking. We do tons of stuff under the hood that may or may not translate well. We would end up doing an immense amount of work. We're not talking months, here - we're most likely talking in terms of a year or two. Optimizing our current engine is a much smarter approach, especially considering that most pre-existing engines wouldn't improve performance very much, to wit: Of course, if BFC were to recreate Battle for Normandy with the Crysis3 or Unreal 4 Engines, I would launch all my money at them. A lot of optimizations don't apply very well to our use case. Quite a lot of things that have made FPS engines faster in the last few years don't work (at all) for a free-camera system like ours. Neither of these engines would be a significant improvement, performance-wise. We might get better special effects out of it, and some nice tweaks, but we wouldn't get *much* better in terms of actual pipeline usage. We'd have to customize pretty heavily to get what we needed. Now, if we were to gain somehow in usability or future-proofing, that would be good, but it would have to be ridiculously significant. Basically - an engine switch wouldn't be for performance purposes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted November 14, 2014 Author Share Posted November 14, 2014 Phill, I'm actually glad to hear that as I don't think I'd want to start my collection all over again. I'm happy with the path you are following and prefer content/features over graphics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Steppenwulf Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Actually that's not a fair comment because the current 911 has very little in common with a 911 from 50 years ago Neither is it a fair analogy because the car market is not, and is nothing like, the the 3d video game's market. On a similar note I cringe when I read discussions about game engine upgrades being compared to automobile feature upgrades. To me these sound like fan boi arguments and hold no truth. The truth applicable to all products is that they are only viable to continue producing (without a shift in design), as long as they continue to turn an acceptable profit for the company producing them. What the competition in the market is producing relative to the company's own products impacts on this. There's the rub; BF enjoy a certain degree of monopoly in this niche area of video gaming and that is why this product retails well. If BF faced stiffer competition they would be forced to consider their pricing more closely and similarly more likely to invest more and plan ahead sooner for their future products. Thus any company's products are only worth what we the buyers are willing to pay for them and that is a individual consumer driven assessment - it is not an objective discussion, only BF analysis of the overall sales can be the objective bit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endymion Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Neither is it a fair analogy because the car market is not, and is nothing like, the the 3d video game's market. I didn't make an analogy here. I said the comment comparing 911 now and 911 50 years ago was a really bad one since they have nothing in common except the name. I'm not really a part of the discussion about the game engine, just pointing out a logical mistake that someone made 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 I think we've taken enormous strides in the last couple years. The 2.0 version of the engine really was a major upgrade - the rendering pipeline was entirely rewritten. The 3.0 version of the engine included enormous structural and practical performance improvements.......... Basically - an engine switch wouldn't be for performance purposes. Thanks Phil, conceptually I understand that, but much better to hear from a guy who knows from the inside. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus Sertorius Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Combat Mission: Gettysburg 1863 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blazing 88's Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 They barely run it now due to faults in the engine. The game could definitely use a better engine, just for the performance improvements alone. As fun as the game is, it does run like crap, even on very high end modern systems. What? Really?? I do not agree with this post. See my specs below for my desktop workstation... CM even runs like a charm on my other system (a 17.3" Samsung gaming laptop). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordhedgwich Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 What? Really?? I do not agree with this post. See my specs below for my desktop workstation... CM even runs like a charm on my other system (a 17.3" Samsung gaming laptop). I think he is just saying for dated graphics and somewhat poor special effects the engine runs bad.. I however like CMs graphics especially with mods The one thing i hate is how the map is just kind of floating in endless space lol. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim1954 Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 And over how many years and game hours are those cost acumulated? Seriously, I buy food for some 500$ a month. I pay 150$ a month for cable/streaming tv services. Over the years CM costs are peanuts compared to what you get out of it. Seriously, I wasn't complaining. Those costs are just what I have spent on CMx2 titles and that since CMBN came out. I only recently picked up Shock Force and Afghanistan. That cost doesn't come close to the 60-70 odd board games I have in the garage with sadly no place to leave them set up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 Seriously, I wasn't complaining. Those costs are just what I have spent on CMx2 titles and that since CMBN came out. I only recently picked up Shock Force and Afghanistan. That cost doesn't come close to the 60-70 odd board games I have in the garage with sadly no place to leave them set up. I didn't think you were complaining. But don't mind Fizou, he still might be trigger happy from all the arguments we've endured over the last couple releases from the "we shouldn't have to pay" brigade. Mord. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 Well, anybody that played CMSF or Afghanistan knows how far removed the newest titles are from them. Pretending there's a comparison is just an excuse to grind an axe. I'd go so far to say that SF is almost as different to CMBN as CMAK was to SF. And THAT distance is only increasing which is fine as **** with me. You can upgrade the engine until I am dead. It seems to work for Steel Beasts. Mord. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOS:96B2P Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 You can upgrade the engine until I am dead. Mord. +++1 10char 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordhedgwich Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 Well, anybody that played CMSF or Afghanistan knows how far removed the newest titles are from them. Pretending there's a comparison is just an excuse to grind an axe. I'd go so far to say that SF is almost as different to CMBN as CMAK was to SF. And THAT distance is only increasing which is fine as **** with me. You can upgrade the engine until I am dead. It seems to work for Steel Beasts. Mord. I agree SF is hard for me to get into due to how far removed it is from the newer WWII titles and i havent bought CMAF due to the fact they are so different. I wouldnt mind a new engine, but this one should do fine for at least a few more years 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 I wouldnt mind a new engine, but this one should do fine for at least a few more years And in a few years it could be totally different than it is today. We really won't know until we see how far they can take it. I think some newer animations and special FX would go a long way in freshening it up. However, I am really happy with how far we've come. It's been a long road and I love having the upgrades. Keeping every title the same was the greatest decision BFC could've made. Mord. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 I agree SF is hard for me to get into due to how far removed it is from the newer WWII titles and i havent bought CMAF due to the fact they are so different. I wouldnt mind a new engine, but this one should do fine for at least a few more years I am still loving CMSF, but I can't wait for it to be upgraded to the newer engine version. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poesel Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 My only gripe with the current engine is that it makes changing the UI difficult (as Steve or Phil stated). And that is an area which could use some improvement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUCASWILLEN05 Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 As others have said there is still plenty to do on WW2, I would like to see the early blitzkrieg campigns in France, Poland ad the Balkans. Also he Western Desrt In the long term perhaps even the Pacific theatre. Hwevwer for WW2 the ETO 1944-5 and all of the Russin Front are my prefererred priorities. Moderns, I would certainly enjoy a mid 1980s NatO - Warsaw Pact. Also some of the other historical conflicts such as the Arab -Israeli Wars. On modern hyptheticals a Second Korean War would wrk well and you could have aChinese intervention. Also a general Middle East conflagration scenario nd perhaps a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 I suspect a China-Taiwan conflict would be mainly an air/naval war with ground troops coming into play as not much more than an occupying force. Ergo, not in CM's bailiwick. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 Ergo, not in CM's bailiwick. Michael Keep that perverted talk to yourself! Mord. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 What? You think BFC wants to make an air/naval game? I suppose they could, but haven't shown any interest in that direction in the last 15 years. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.