Flipper Posted August 4, 2000 Share Posted August 4, 2000 Sorry..guess this will go over like a fart in church but....just got the game the other day an well i guss i expected more but well the arnhem map look's like i don't no what to say but for one of the finest tac sim's in year's it was almost like they said to hell with visual's let's just get the ballistic's right, same thing go's for nijmegen i really don't mind big big map's an i mean big but the distance across the waal an neder rijn is a joke an the town is worse i mean there's not a row house to be seen for that matter i dont think any building connects to another maybe with future addition's we can have ..long bridge's narrow road's row house's third stories.basement's an belfry's (for spotter's of course) this ain't a rant just a sigh.. open terrain still kick's ass!...kick up the vrml..IF YOU BUILD IT THEY WILL COME! MAKE 32 MB A MINIMUM FOR GRAPHIC'S CARD'S hell i'm buying the voodoo 6000 when it come's out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krm Posted August 4, 2000 Share Posted August 4, 2000 Hehe, fart in a church Well, If you've given the map editor a try I'm sure you'd find that it is quite hard to make a city look really good, and I think the map designers have done a damn good job. Most of the historical maps were made with topographical maps, and people with years of experience. Your entitled to your opinion, and ofcourse there could be some improvements, but overall, I think you'll be hard stretched to find better maps in a game (I know you're only talking about Arnhem and Nijmegen) Also what you say is largely due to the terrain features in CM - they are somewhat limited and it is difficult to come up with something that looks anything like a 1940's French city etc. ------------------ I'm always in the ****, it's only the depth that varies. [This message has been edited by krm (edited 08-04-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flipper Posted August 4, 2000 Author Share Posted August 4, 2000 hey dude i know where your coming from i mean I totally get transfixed just watching the tanks in action it's erie they are so real they haul ass down the road then swivel back an forth panic you name it...but oh god if they had cc3's eye candy well lets just say you could play a football game between two house across the street an still have some room to spare i'm not like saying there's room for improvment..geez sky's the limit remeber squad leader but...if they do verdun on the volga they better not treat us the same as avalon hill did..i mean 250 meter factory's when they were like what 2 mile's! it's possible but like they said in the manual vrml is the key..hmmm really huge map like that would gobble up map wise at least 30-40 megs minmum no way in there book but im just guessing hell my theory xploit the power of the comp screw the little guy who's running 32 mb at 233. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gashford Posted August 4, 2000 Share Posted August 4, 2000 I agree with your point of view, I have spent quite a bit of time getting used to the map editor recently and thikn that the game plays best in rural rather than urban maps. You can quite easily make convincing farms, small hamlets and so forth but if you come to urbanised areas I don't think that CM was designed for it. I suppose though that we have to try and remember that the immediate remit of CM was to play through the advances after Overlord which seemed predominatly rural.... Either way I agree with your rants and it is the only failing that I have managed to really search for in an otherwise great game and one I have been waiting for for years! Also better graphics means higher spec machines which means less players. My two pennies worth anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted August 4, 2000 Share Posted August 4, 2000 No offense, but if you want a game that looks like CC, go play CC. All of CC's maps were drawn by Atomic's artists, as opposed to being built with a set of building tools. I suspect if CC ever went fully 3D the way CM is, it wouldn't have any of that eye candy you speak of. Better graphics would be fine, but I think if you're expecting exact, spot-on representations of every location in Europe, you're likely to be disappointed a lot. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flipper Posted August 4, 2000 Author Share Posted August 4, 2000 I'm not saying that..but these are set map's albeit like you said with tool's used in there construction.All's I'm saying is that They could have mapped the view's that they include..another subject altogether. probably at a great expense to there time, an drawn special stand alone map's that would have enhanced it's characrcter all the more...like i said earlier they went ball's out on the personnel side it's just that when i look at arnhem i like to think of certain landmark's..well you know that's no big deal really I have a feeling that's the next barrier to fall to these guy's! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. W W Posted August 4, 2000 Share Posted August 4, 2000 Am I the only one who doesn't care about graphics? I got my little Voodoo 2 and I run it on fast and compatible, and transparent buildings, and I am fine. In fact, I am happy they didn't go Michealangelo with the eye candy. When I see a "dazzling" 3d game anymore, I just assume it will suck. Sacrifice gameplay for graphics. This is a stupid point of view on my part, but I don't care, it is what it is. All these things are representational and I am cool with that. The game works, F the rest. On the other hand, I do wish my LOS would cut off with the appearant side of a structure. OK, I admit it, I am as anal as the next guy. Hehe Flipper, did you use to Fly EAW? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncounio Posted August 4, 2000 Share Posted August 4, 2000 Well I do not know Arnhem, but I can tell you that the Louvre and Tuileries map (A walk in Paris) is quite accurate (as I used to live in Paris)and IMHO the best you can get with the CM engine ------------------ Nicolas http://perso.infonie.fr/nicolas.counio/combat_mission1.html "Deux intellectuels assis vont moins loin qu'une brute qui marche" Un Taxi Pour Tobrouk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted August 4, 2000 Share Posted August 4, 2000 I've been wondering just how unrealistic cities in CM are. Try going down to level 1 - they look much more realistic when you're down amongst the buildings. Let's face it - how often do you view a city from above? I think it's really just chance that country is more realistic from above. Clever map design definitely helps. I haven't spent too long analysing the city maps that came with CM, but I reckon there are ways to make them pretty convincing. I might suggest that Americans wouldn't be the best people to design European maps, but I think the designers involved are pretty clued up. It does help to actually live here, though, and really understand the way everything is and why. I'll maybe try doing a city map sometime and see how much luck I have. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts