Graphics suck?!!?!?!

[lordhedgwich]

So i was talking to a guy on my friends list on steam. and we start talking about about combat mission he said he played the really old ones a long time ago and he really liked them...So i sent him a link to black sea and tell him to check that out, and the first thing he says is "The graphics kind of suck." I dont understand how people can say that.. I think amount of detail in CM games is amazing! i dont understand people sometimes. Anyone else ever had something similar happen?

[Thewood1]

If you just look at graphics, yeah, I can see that.  If you see ARMA 2/3 all up, it looks almost real.  You can make CM look really good depending on the angle and height of the camera, but the LOD is a visualization killer, along with soldier animations.  I am not complaining, but I can see where someone would think that CM is subpar.  Let's face it, BFC is squeezing the last dribs out of a dated engine on a standard (OpenGL) that is not well supported by the two main card producers.

 

I actually don't have a problem with the graphics.  That is maybe 20% of why I play.  But I play a lot of ARMA and even a six year old ARMA game beats the latest release from BFC.  Some of my ARMA friends can't believe I play Combat Mission and Steel Beasts because of some of the graphics in the games.

[Wodin]

Well I feel sorry for them being so dependent on state of the art graphics..there the ones who miss out.

[TeaReks]

My friends have been watching me stream CMBS using steam's streaming overlay.  At least one bought it and a few others are thinking if it while playing the crap out of the demos.  The only mentions of the appearance has been the infantry animations ei, "They are wearing standard issue roller blades". 

 

I am a bit of a graphics hound and I although better graphics would be awesome id hope they wouldn't be at the expense of the game play.  Id much rather hear "The graphics kind of suck" than "the game kind of sucks".

[Lets_All_Fight]

I think I might be a bit of a rarity amongst sim/strat game players in that I really do like to see good graphics. While I think they are certainly more important in sims where they should provide a level of immersion that goes hand in glove with the technical simulation of systems etc I still think they have a major place in games like this. 

 

Although there are a lot of things from my personal wish list I would love to see added to Combat Mission, I have to say I do really like the graphics. As much as I would love to see more variety ( and this is as much about the availability of terrain features and doodads as how they look), there have been more times than I can remember when I've been caught by just how atmospheric the current engine - as dated as it is - manages to be.

 

Would I like better graphics at the expense of features? Well probably not, but it would depend on what the feature was and what the graphical improvements were going to be. At the moment I think BFC have struck a good balance between looks and brains and I hope future games make this balance even better.  

[Kieme(ITA)]

Not the target consumer of CM games.

If you ask a dog about CMBS you won't get a different reply.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[Thewood1]

to add...I would ask for some UI improvements before a major investment in graphics.  Compared to CMSF, CMBS is almost  completely different game from a UI perspective.  But, I would like to see a lot more standardization within the game and compared to the libraries available to a typical windows developer.

[AC 337]

I think that Graphics are a great field where Battlefront could improve Combat Mission. I have been playing the crap out of these games since Shock Force, and I would absolutely like to see such an improvement in one of my favorite games series! It seems that a lot of games have been able to make major graphical jumps by implementing advanced lighting models like they did with Battlefield, maybe this would be the way to do it with Combat Mission.

[MikeyD]

I've often joked that some people tend to raise the camera up to where they lose all the detail, then they stay at that height and complain of the lack of detail.   The graphics do 'kind'a suck' - from 20 feet up and 20 feet back. Some of the youtube videos I've seen of the game I've found myself yelling at the monitor "You're too high up! Lower the frickin' camera!!!!"

[womble]

UI before graphics, please. Graphics has had one big hug (bump mapping, arrived with v2) and some tweaks for performance since BN, and I'm sure that is an iterative process that will continue.

[sburke]

I think I might be a bit of a rarity amongst sim/strat game players in that I really do like to see good graphics. While I think they are certainly more important in sims where they should provide a level of immersion that goes hand in glove with the technical simulation of systems etc I still think they have a major place in games like this. 

 

Although there are a lot of things from my personal wish list I would love to see added to Combat Mission, I have to say I do really like the graphics. As much as I would love to see more variety ( and this is as much about the availability of terrain features and doodads as how they look), there have been more times than I can remember when I've been caught by just how atmospheric the current engine - as dated as it is - manages to be.

 

Would I like better graphics at the expense of features? Well probably not, but it would depend on what the feature was and what the graphical improvements were going to be. At the moment I think BFC have struck a good balance between looks and brains and I hope future games make this balance even better.  

 

Not so rare as you might think.     I'd love to see more and better animations, even better graphics etc.  Hell assuming there was no cost to them, who wouldn't.  But yes I agree, for now the balance is good.  The graphics could be spectacular, but if the gameplay sucked this wouldn't be on my hard drive.  Even now I still fire up CMSF on a regular basis.

[Cpl Steiner]

I am loving CM:BS but I would agree that the graphics are nothing to shout about. I also get some odd graphical behaviour, such as a kind of temporary "hang" when something big happens, such as a powerful explosion on-map somewhere, or a kind of "refresh" effect in which  the entire display seems to randomly redraw. CM gameplay with "Skyrim" quality graphics would obviously be very welcome but I know that is not going to happen.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Cpl Steiner

[Pelican Pal]

Graphics become more important as detail levels increase. Right now CM is ostensibly 1:1 so expectations are increased as to what things should look like. If the game kept the CMx1 stylization and had a decent art direction (I highly doubt that it would, but) it could look absolutely beautiful.

 

BFC took a trip the uncanny valley though so graphics and animations become more important and every subpar visual more apparent.

[Thewood1]

Steel Beasts did a major graphical overhaul last year and it made a huge difference in the overall quality of the game.  But it sure looked like a long and painful haul for eSims.  I think sooner than later BFC will have to do it as well.  OpenGL is not a standard with a very bright future and I would think it makes it difficult to do some of the basic things that most gamers expect out of the box in a game in 2015.

[Frankster65]

Frankly, for the record, I love the graphics.  I think they are perfect.

[rocketman]

For a game like this I think the graphics are OK out of the box, but with mods it gets much better. So if you feel that the graphics hold the game back too much, try modding and you might find yourself satisfied.

[grunt_GI]

I think MikeyD and rocket man have good points:

A) I am one of those semi high altitude players..probably because I play real time mode. So most detail and animation is more than good enough for my ADHD camera movements.

. Now that I am using mods...the graphic quality is so much better. There are truly some driven talented artists out there.

Game play, story, realism, and REPLAYABILITY are key for me. I am so freakin' happy with the QB improvements of the latest games versus CMSF that eye candy quickly become of secondary importance.

I am not a graphics guru but generally I would say that better is the enemy of good enough.. Especially to make a game that folks with a wide variety of machines can play.

Just my .02.

Cheers.

[womble]

...major graphical overhaul...long and painful...I think sooner than later BFC will have to do it as well.  OpenGL is not a standard with a very bright future and I would think it makes it difficult to do some of the basic things that most gamers expect out of the box in a game in 2015.

I think BFC agree with you, that they're going to have to do something sooner or later, and they've said they'll be leaving OpenGL at some stage. I'd imagine there may be some simultaneity there.

[Pablius]

If I had to choose more missions/units to play around or better graphics I would go with the former in a CM game

 

Having said that, I would definitely welcome some improvements to fire effects and explosions, even more animations (IE: hand to hand combat, being blown away), a more realistic approach to building and destructive environment with tactical consequences

[Thewood1]

I think the part that frustrates a lot of players who complain about straight up "pretty graphics" in CM are sometimes complaining about the illogical nature of how CM works.  Its that with the current graphics, high-end PCs should be smooth as silk.  Instead, you get this mish-mash of hardware combinations that seem to work very well with CM, while top end GPU/CPU combinations can sometimes be a slideshow.  I could easily live with the graphics, if I know I can get good results from a PC I buy.  It sometimes seems to be a crapshoot.

[Pelican Pal]

Yea, my computer can be brought to a crawl with a few graphics mods attached to a CM scenario but can play an understrength company sized battle in Arma 3 fiine.

[Jock Tamson]

There is no excuse for the textures not being better IMO, when within days of release the modders have got it looking so much better (and have managed to do so with every CMx2 release).

[Bradley]

I'd be happy with the current, although modded graphics, for the foreseeable future. One thing I'd like to see is further improvement in LOD at greater distances, if possible. Big thumbs up for BS UI. Love it.

[z1812]

So i was talking to a guy on my friends list on steam. and we start talking about about combat mission he said he played the really old ones a long time ago and he really liked them...So i sent him a link to black sea and tell him to check that out, and the first thing he says is "The graphics kind of suck." I dont understand how people can say that.. I think amount of detail in CM games is amazing! i dont understand people sometimes. Anyone else ever had something similar happen?

People have been known to criticize Battlefront and CM frequently. It seems to be a great past time for those with a lot to say and little to offer.

As Wargames go, Battlefront offers a great deal of fidelity to observing "proper combat results" considering their budget and market size.

The only 3D wargame that is at all similar is Achtung Panzer Operation Star. That game however only offers Real Time without any multi-player at all.

There was another 3D Russian front game called Panzer Command Ostfront which, in my view, is just not comparable to the above.

Not to mention the attempt to port Close Combat to 3D which was called GI Combat if I recall correctly.

Armed Assault and Battlefield are first person shooters. As such they appeal to a larger market which means more revenue and more money for development. They are not wargames as such.

In my view it is remarkable that such a small company, serving such a niche group, has been able to provide such an excellent series of wargames.

They have done an excellent job of balancing resources between graphic quality and providing a believable tactical experience.

[Lets_All_Fight]

Not so rare as you might think.  

Lol, Maybe! I hope so anyway. 

 

My number one desire for a graphics overhaul in CM right now would be for urban graphics. But that is more than just textures. I'd love more varieties of buildings, urban flavour objects, chain fences. At the moment we can get some really beautiful rural maps but most towns and cities still look lifeless and boxy.