CM Graphics - Room For Improvement

[aka_tom_w]

I have read all your posts

and I still would like to see better graphics and more eye candy.

I think CM2 should be prettier and more artistically appealing than CMBO.

I am confident Steve and Charles will never compromise any of the GREAT game play or fetures or historical accuracy for more eye candy, but they could make CM2 prettier.

I personally believe Gunslinger's mods and Tiger's vehicle mods and all the rest of the HIGH quality "eye candy" mods at MadMatt's CMHQ have bought the look and apperance of this game up to a MUCJ higher standard of Video Game eye-candy quality and appeal. I'm not sure much more is needed other than nice 3D rubble and some different 3D models for dead tanks.

If BTS would just include MORE 3D models for us to add textures to in CM2 all the REALLY cool eye candy for texture can come from (perhaps yet undiscovered volunteer talent) all the tallented artists and designers that have voluntarily made CMBO MUCH MUCH more artistically appealing and really good looking with the latest and great texture modifications to just about EVERY .bmp in the game.

we aren't asking for much, just give us grey textured 3D models we can paint and texture to our hearts content, new buildings, new rubble, new dead tanks, new terrain, new cliffs, new gardens new barns, new construction yards new rail railyards, new bridges,

just leave them ALL as just grey textured 3D models and WATCH how fast the mods go up to colour and "paint" them for that beautiful CM look of 3D realism

-tom w

[Chupacabra]

One thing to perhaps point out is that CM2's graphics will be better than those of CM1. It's up to BTS to decide how much better they should be.

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Samhain]

Deanco wrote:

"Question 2 I guess would be if BTS is interested in selling to this expanded "gamey" market. Maybe they're not, in which case there is no real reason to improve the graphics, since there are those who would buy it if it was hexes and counters."

It wouldn't still be CM if it were hex based or used a 2D overhead view with counter-like units.

Also, if CM had a 3D environment that replaced the current buildings with wireframes and the soldiers with literal stick figures, I know I would get much less enjoyment out of the game. I'm sure many others here would agree. The game, after all, is as much about recreating a bit of WWII's feel as it is about the mathematical interactions of numbers derived from historical research.

There may be those here who would buy the game if it were totally devoid of decent visuals, but many serious gamers, like myself, find that visuals enhance the gaming experience, regardless of genre (though they do it in different ways).

Just to restate and expound on my position clearly: I don't in any way propose that BTS replace detail, subtlety, and complexity with pointless eye candy. What I'd like are the former supplemented by beautiful, cutting-edge graphics that enhance the immersion in the experience. (Minus the bloody gore of real war, thanks!)

------------------

I rode a tank, held a general's rank

When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank.

--Rolling Stones

[This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 10-30-2000).]

[Mr. Clark]

I LOVE CM, and I still would NEVER consider buying a 64 meg card next year just to play CM2. I just bought my Voodoo 3 3000.

I do not play enough hyper-graphics games on the PC to make it worth my expense.

What is the best thing about PC games? It's the depth and intricate controls possible. If I'm playing Mortal Kombat 209: a new beginning, then sure, I want want my graphics to be pretty as hell.(and I would probably be playing it on a console game system) However, if I'm playing the best tactical wargame ever, I could really give a crap what the graphics look like.

C'mon people... we are used to playing PC wargames that have graphical Icons that look like tabletop cardboard counters. CM is already a HUGE step up from that.

If someone is only buying CM for the eye candy, let them look elsewhere. They are not going to have the attention span to explore the depth of the game anyway.

[Marco Bergman]

I personally don't see a need for improved graphics. Speaking as a high-res modder, I would like to point out that the high resolution textures take about 4-5 times as long to draw as the standard ones, so you are adding an awful lot of development time for a two person programming team.

As various other mod makers have shown, you can get very nice results just by putting more detail and sharpness into the standard resolution textures. So I vote just for tidier textures, not bigger, as long as the engine continues to allow modders to add high-res for those who wish it.

[Maximus]

I think the biggest improvement is just to add dynamic lighting effects. Think of it this way. During a night battle, when the tank fires, it lights up the surrounding area a little bit. And then when the projectile hits home, the resulting expolsion glows as one would expect.

That right there would improve the overall immersion to the game.

[Maximus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Clark:

I LOVE CM, and I still would NEVER consider buying a 64 meg card next year just to play CM2. I just bought my Voodoo 3 3000.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You bought a Voodoo 3 3000, recently? You wasted your money, bub, IMHO.

[Steve Clark]

Wasting money? That's a stupid thing to say. I don't know the reason Mr. Clark bought his, but I bought my voodoo3 this summer for $79.95 to replace both my voodoo2 and a broken STB Nitro. And, it runs perfectly on a 233MMX PC. So what's your point, bub?

[Samhain]

I think the point is that the V3 is now quite dated technology, though of course it might fit someone's needs quite well. (I used to have one myself, btw--a nice card.) If you have a powerful processor and play graphics-intensive games (i.e., the great majority of titles), it may be wiser to invest in a GeForce2, V5, or ATI Radeon.

------------------

I rode a tank, held a general's rank

When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank.

--Rolling Stones

[This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 10-30-2000).]

[deanco]

Hi Germanboy,

You said,

Abandoning that vision for increased sales would be the death of the idea, and Steve and Charles could then as well go and sell BTS to Microschrott or Hasbro. Because once you move away from gameplay being the core to 'how do I please the crowds', hovertanks, blood & gore, and all sorts of arse are just lurking around the corner. It is a slippery sloe that will ensure killer graphics, huge sales, big bank accounts and an easy life for them. Look at Atomic. Somehow I don't feel that is going to happen to BTS. Would be a shame if it was.

----------------

My point was they already have the increased sales, unlooked for increased sales. Two backorders worth. And..."the crowds" that they have to please... are here, sorta. I guess I'm one, right? And all without BTS being one bit untrue to their Manifesto (which I have read and believe in wholeheartedly). Hmmm...why?

I'm just saying you would want to take a good look at why that happened and then decide if you want to run with that ball or stick your head in the sand and pretend it never happened. (I'm not saying one is inherently better than the other, BTW. There are a lot of good arguments against "increased sales" too.)

Let's get away from graphics for a bit. I think the intuitive point-and-click waypoint system sold a lot of copies to this "gamey" audience too. 10 minutes and you're giving orders to your men like a pro. As a gamer I appreciate that too.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there are a lot of little details that make up a great game, and graphics quality is only one of many. But the whole in CM's case was greater than the sum of its parts. And it was so good it managed to break out of it's niche a little. That's a fact. Now... how to deal with that situation? Do you want to cater to those "extra" people who bought your game (for example, by improving the point-and-click interface to make it EVEN MORE intuitive and ergonomic, and therefore more accessible to "gamey" type people) or not?

DeanCo--

[Maximus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Samhain:

I think the point is that the V3 is now quite dated technology, though of course it might fit someone's needs quite well. (I used to have one myself, btw--a nice card.) If you have a powerful processor and play graphics-intensive games (i.e., the great majority of titles), it may be wiser to invest in a GeForce2, V5, or ATI Radeon.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly my point. Thank you very much Samhain.

Buying a Voodoo 3 now is like upgrading to a PII-450 from a PII-233. What's the point? You're buying obsolete equipment. And why do that when the newer stuff is less than double the price. For example, a PII-450 is probably around $80, but a AMD Duron 700 is only $140. A 700MHz Duron runs better than a 1Ghz Athlon, BTW, due to the Duron's full speed cache. So would I spend $80 on an obsolete chip or spend just a little more for a new chip. I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count on the one I'd buy.

So what I'm saying here is that if you've got an AGP slot I would definately go with at least a Nvidia TNT2 card right now. Which is what I have after I researched over a year ago and discovered that 3Dfx Voodoo 3's and under ain't worth a damn.

------------------

"Rule#3: You must be a member of my Meta Campaign to take

part.(doh!)" - Rob/1

[Samhain]

DeanCo, perhaps the question should be, do you want to cater to them or pander to them? Acknowledging that many non-wargamers (whatever that means ) have bought and are enthused about CM is only wise, given the slim chances of a computerized wargame succeeding commercially in the first place. Why not pay attention to their desires? That certainly doesn't inherently mean BTS would have to sacrifice quality. It's not, I'd hope, a simple dichotomy of nice graphics and intuitive interface vs. careful historical research. As you say, these elements have come together synergistically to create an instant classic. For me, a major criterion of any game's success is its ability to immerse me in its world, and the more the CM series can do that through spectactular sound and graphics, while remaining a rich intellectual challenge, the better.

Regarding that earlier quote about the hovertanks crowd, I'd say that a) there are games in other genres that are just as good as CM is in its genre (i.e., at the pinnacle) gamers with an interest in other genres can be just as fanatical and dedicated about their games and deserve more respect, and c) gameplay and graphics can't generally be so easily separated.

------------------

I rode a tank, held a general's rank

When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank.

--Rolling Stones

[This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 10-30-2000).]

[Maximus]

Let's go back to the graphics issue. There's an argument that cropped up way back last spring before the Gold Demo was released that decribed this issue of today.

Let me start of saying that Combat Mission is a WARGAME. So in order to justly compare its graphics to other games, you should compare them to other wargames. CM's graphics are LEAPS ahead of other computer wargames to date. And that's really stoked the interest to most of us veteran members here. The wargaming community has been looking for a game like this for years, even decades. But the only thing was, was that computer technology hadn't the capability until just recently to have game of this magnitude. Still think CM's graphics suck. Just punch up a big map like "A Walk Through Paris" and then tell me if your computer doesn't start whimpering. The point is that many people over-estimate what today's hardware can do. Yes, they can render incredible scenes from QIII and STV:Elite Forces, but just how many polygons is there on the screen at one time? Not too many. It's just thge wonderful textures over them that make them look so good.

Remember everything on the CM battlefield is a polygon, except for the 2D tree sprites, of course. So there is a tremendous amount of polygons to render then you add all the textures to them and you've gotcha a CPU intensive environment.

I'd write more, but it's Dinner time.

------------------

"Rule#3: You must be a member of my Meta Campaign to take

part.(doh!)" - Rob/1

[Samhain]

Someone may have said the graphics in CM "suck" but it sure wasn't me. They're pretty good, imo, but they could certainly be improved in a number of ways. And if the game crawls, that could have as much to do with optimization as it does poly counts

As for the poly counts, see my earlier posts in this thread.

I don't think CM's graphics need only be compared to those of other wargames. After all, CM isn't just any wargame; rather, it's something quite different and special in many ways. It's set a staggeringly high new standard for strategy games, and it can surely bear being held to a very high standard. Why ghetto-ize it?

------------------

I rode a tank, held a general's rank

When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank.

--Rolling Stones

[This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 10-30-2000).]

[coralsaw]

CMBO is a revolutionary game. As such, IMO, it would be rather short-sighted (with all due respect) to compare it only to other wargames.

It is incorrect to assume that a player is a wargamer/FPSer/RPGer or what have you. Revolutionary games transcend this pigeonholing. Quite like Tomb Raider 1 did for instance.

Says who that only grogs should buy, enjoy and play CM, so let's keep the graphics simple?

------------------

My squads are regular, must be the fibre in the musli...

[Samhain]

That would be the same sort of sad snobbism (how's that for gratuitous alliteration? )you see in other genres, or among diehard computers gamers vs. diehard console gamers. It would also, in this case, probably be a brand of snobbism that could hurt the CM series in the long run.

------------------

I rode a tank, held a general's rank

When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank.

--Rolling Stones

[Jeff Heidman]

I think people are forgetting some things, on both sides of the argument.

For those who say that the graphics are unimportant, I say you are lying to yourself.

The very thing that makes CM different from everything else out there IS the graphics! It is hardly the first game to model WW2 combat at a high level of detail. That is not new. What is new is that it is the first game to model WW2 combat at a high level of detail and using a 3d graphics engine.

If you want a high level of detail (even higher than CM in some aspects) and really do not care about graphics. go get Panthers in the Mist.

As far as the polygon count thing, I am not real convinced. Earth 2150 has a rotating 3d view of the battlefield, and has tons of units going at once. Granted, that view is much more fixed than CM, but you get the point.

I think the more relevant factor when comparing CM to all these other games is that CM has a team of 2 people. All those other examples were designed and developed by MUCH larger groups, and probably had two people doing nothing BUT graphics.

CM looks pretty good, especially with all the high-res mods out there. There are still some things that could be better that cannot be addressed through mods, but I am certain they will be improved.

IMO, the graphics are what you should expect, but certainly can be better. The question is whether or not the "cost" of better graphics (less time spent on the engine of the game itself) is worth the effort.

The real question is whether BTS can scale up there operation to bring specialist type designers onboard to do stuff like improve the graphics or network play without losing whatever it is that made them able to accomplish what they have so far. If they cannot, then someone else almost certainly will.

Jeff Heidman

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Samhain:

Acknowledging that many non-wargamers (whatever that means ) have bought and are enthused about

CM is only wise, given the slim chances of a computerized wargame succeeding commercially in the first

place. Why not pay attention to their desires? That certainly doesn't inherently mean BTS would have to

sacrifice quality. It's not, I'd hope, a simple dichotomy of nice graphics and intuitive interface vs. careful

historical research. As you say, these elements have come together synergistically to create an instant

classic. For me, a major criterion of any game's success is its ability to immerse me in its world, and the

more the CM series can do that through spectactular sound and graphics, while remaining a rich

intellectual challenge, the better.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree completely with this.

We are talking about comparing this game to other games. Maximus insists we should only compare it to other Wargames, like Steel Panthers or Close Combat or Panser General.

Well no, I say lets look at COOL games like Panzer Elite, it is VERY pretty. Everyone here should look at Myth and Myth II (NOT Myst, Myth: The Fallen Lords, by Bungie, see its screen shots here: <A HREF="http://macgamersledge.com/Reviews/myth/myth.html" TARGET=_blank>http://macgamersledge.com/Reviews/myth/myth.html</A>

http://myth.bungie.com/pastscreenshots.html

This is a GREAT RTS strategy game that has NO resource harvesting in it, and the polygon count is VERY high and the animation is spectacular and it was released in 1997!

Yes it is REAL time combat in FULL 3D like combat mission with better animation way back three years ago when computers were SLOW in 1997. Yes it has lots of blood and yes it has healers, and wizards and monsters and the undead, but it also has archers that shoot flaming arrows and little dwarfs that lay mine fields ans throw molotov cocktails to set them off. (and the Explosions are very nice!)

I mention it here because it is FUN to play and it is FULL of eye candy and it is a "broad swords and archers" strategy game with NO resource harvesting, huge polygon counts and GREAT character animation (sorry no tanks, bummer) and it is a good example of how BTS can make their games LOOK better.

So when Samhain says "For me, a major criterion of any game's success is its ability to immerse me in its world, and the more the CM series can do that through spectactular sound and graphics, while remaining a rich intellectual challenge, the better."

I agree with him completely!

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-30-2000).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-30-2000).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-30-2000).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-30-2000).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-30-2000).]

[Guest KwazyDog]

"except for the 2D tree sprites, of course"

Actually Maximus, even those 2D trees take up 2 polygons EACH

I found it interesting reading through this thread and Im glad to see that a good portion of people believe that the game behind the graphics is if anything more important that the graphics themselves, because I myself believe the same.

One thing that I think everyone needs to remember is that everything takes time. For instance let take CM1. Lets say Charles decided to put in dynamic lighting in there (which I agree would be very cool!). The question is, would anyone here have traded it for say...the detailed armour combat that we already experience CM now? Or for CM2 would you rather it to detailed building damage? I wouldnt, and I dont think there would be many who would

Combat Missions graphics engine does incredibly well, and pushes a LOT of polygons. Each vehicle currently ranges from around 300-500 polygons, each soldier 40-50 (just guessing on that one), each building 16-18, each tree 2, and the terrain as you can imagine several hundred into the several thousands, depending on the size of battle being played. In a reasonable sized battle that is a LOT of polygons, easily as much as you will see in an average game of Unreal or Quake. Combat Mission handles this VERY well, even on low end systems. On my system I have played some huge battles without any substancial slow down.

Earth 2150 is an example of a similar engine Jeff, but it is also very different. For instance Id guess for instance those vehicles would probably have the same amount of polygons as the infantry in CM, and of course much lower res textures. Tom, out of interest how far towards the horizon could you see in Myth 2? Is it one of those games that dont *quite* let you get down to eye level? Part of the reason Earth 2150 wouldnt allow you to get down to eye level was to keep polygons to a minimum. Other games use fog to stop you seeing too far, and thus take away the need to it to render 2km's into the distance. If CM was only to display a small area of the battlefield at one time, polygons could of course be inreased. Of course, game play would suffer severely.

Textures for CM1 were kept lower for backwards compatibility, a limit that will be upped for CM2 but will certainly not be taken to silly levels (64mb would be great, but wont be a standard for some time to come me thinks ). In CM2 we will see better and higher res textures. I am also hoping we will be able to have more variation amongst vehicles of the same model on the battlefield, more building types and textures, building damage and rubble, more trees, more terrain types and textures, new fire, and more and better backgrounds just to name a few.

CM2 is going to be a huge undertaking for us, the vehicle list alone is immense. I already have gathered resources and blueprints on over 50 types of Russian vehicles, and I dont officially start with battlefront until tomorrow, hehe. For CM1, I worked just under a year help out Steve and Charles in my spare time. For CM2 and beyond I will be working full time and then some as you guys already know, and I think that will give us room to put a lot more work into CM graphics. Id love to see all of the vehicles in CM2 be of the quality of the JagdTiger or Tiger I did up in the packs available on Matts page and although they took and incredible amount of time to complete, that is my goal.

Time will tell, but I am honestly excited about the potential of CM2 already, even though we are just at the beginning of development

[This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 10-30-2000).]

[Guy w/gun]

Well...for anyone willing to get this far down the thread....

I hope your kidding about the better graphics. This is a WAR game. It's supposed to utilize your brain not tax your comp. I have a Geforce 32mb ddr. While its not the most powerful card anymore, it's still VERY good. Do i want better graphics? No. I think if there were better graphics, other things would suffer. Framerate, game speed, etc.

When im zoomed up above my troops, i sometimes forget for a second or two that CM is 3d. to me, the units are supposed to REPRESENT the general position and movement of the real life ones (hence why there is a small bit of clipping between units sometimes). They already have more than enough detail to do that. Just think of them as really detailed and well animated game pieces.

[Turret Ring]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Neutral Party:

However I have found myself screaming "take the f*****g shot you stupid ****" and then having to go drink a very large Scotch.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now....that sums-it-up pretty good!

------------------

"Then we shall fight in the shade." (Greek general's comment upon being told that the Persian archers could blot-out the sun with their arrows.)

[Mord]

Kwazy Dog wrote:

In CM2 we will see better and higher res textures. I am also hoping we will be able to have more variation amongst vehicles on the battlefield, more building types and textures, building damage and rubble, more trees, more terrain types and textures, new fire, and more and better backgrounds just to name a few.

BOING! I am definately aroused now.

Mord.

[This message has been edited by Mord (edited 10-30-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Mord (edited 10-30-2000).]

[Mr. Clark]

Maximus, while you may have handy thousand dollar bills lying around to buy new PC equipment, some of us have lives.

I just can't afford to buy a shiny new $500 card only to have it be called obsolete in 6 months.

I paid $60 for a v3 3000... a step up from my old V2 1000. It plays CM much better, and Jane's WWII fighters. Those are the ONLY games on my PC now. I've only got a 380 mhz, 80 mb machine anyway, so a huge card is only gonna bottleneck somewhere else. The V3 suits my needs. It's rather snobbish and annoying to assume everyone has the cash handy to buy a new super PC every year.

Besides, I just dropped $400 on my new PS2, which I plan on using for most of my (non-wargaming) gaming needs this year.

I can play CM with full graphics, I'm happy.

[Jeff Heidman]

Mr. Clark, I understand exactly where you are coming from, having been there as little as 6 months ago.

You say you are happy when you can run CM with full graphics. What do you mean? Do you think BTS should aim their product so that your system will run their games to there full potential?

If so, I cannot disagree more. Aiming for the low end (and your system is definitely low end these days) when it comes to gaming is a bad, bad idea. The idea is to aim in the middle, so that a mid-level user can run the game adequately, but high end users also get a little more candy, and low end users are not left out of the picture.

You should not have to run out and buy a $500 GeForce 2 Ultra to play CM2 (assuming it came out tomorrow), but at the same time CM should aim for what is the mid-line of its target audience. Today, that is probably a GeForce DDR or something similar.

One thing people should realize, and I am sure Steve and Charles have already thought about this, is that CM2 will not have some of the market advantages that CM1 had. CM1, when it was released, was revolutionary. What BTS did had never been done before. As such, they effectively had no competition.

While BTS has tried hard to keep the success of CM (in dollars) somewhat of a secret, the other people out there are not stupid. CM2 will not be revolutionary, and you can bet that there are people out there right now putting the design together to do their own 3d wargame. It would be a serious error for BTS to assume that the success of CM1 means that life gets easier for them. The opposite is probably more true. I am betting they are smart enough to figure that out, and respond accordingly.

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 10-30-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

Although it is probably silly to jump into this, I thought I would give some insight into how graphics capability gets set in many games (I do not know for sure if this is how BTS did CM).

Each game marketer has a target, or intended audience for a game. This is a demographic (demo) or psychographic or people who will likely purchase the game. To be a commercial success, this demo has to purchase the game at a high enough price point with a low enough cost of production and design for a profit to be made -- so the demo has to be big enough to make a profit.

(A side note: small game companies like BTS fail because they do not take heed of these numbers, making ultimate games that never reach market. Big game companies like Hasbro produce bombs because they let the market aspects and numbers take over from the quality of the games).

Part of this demographic target is meshed up in machines. How big of a machine, what type of machine, what standards does the machine use, how picky the audience is that uses that machine, and so forth.

Most companies, and BTS is likely no exception, generate statistical research on this subject and develop an "average machine" and a "machine range" of capability. They then decide were they draw the line in terms of game quality. Draw the line to low, and the game is terrible looking. Draw the line to high, and no one can get it to work on their system (only the largest FPS type games drive video card sales to any extent). There is also a predictive element. What type of computers will people have tomorrow? (average PC user buys a new PC every 36 months, average Mac user every 48 months). Should we design for the next version of Direct-X which may or may not be on the market, is the most recent Voodoo acceleration worth it, or is it a lot of hog wash.

In the long run, the next game will not be designed based on outliers like us (using the Internet for discussion groups means you are usually on the higher end of computer sophistication, at least according to current research) but based on a range of users. I would love tanks to have photorealistic bit maps and be made of thousands of polygons, and there to be a larger variety of buildings and vehicle "skins", but CM1 was likely targeted to people with 4-8mb of video RAM and a 200mhz machine, very modest by today's standards, and CM2 will likely to be targeted also to modest machines. That does not mean anyone is a luddite, as has been suggested, but that marketing is an issue in this game, and if you target both for the Grogs and for the people with 128mb video ram real-time photorealistic render stations, no one will buy the game.

Let me put it another way. My work station that I use for video editing is also my CM machine. It has 3 video monitors and an NTSC monitor (passed through a firewire VTR). Usually I keep two monitors hooked up to it. I like to spread games out, so I would like a multiple monitor view option for the game, allowing me to see several sides of the battle at once. How many people with 32 or 64mb cards have two monitors? Should Charles spend two months coding multiple monitor support for me when only 1 person in a hundred has that? What if it became mandatory to play the game? What happens to BTS sales when you need two video cards and 2x 19inch monitors to play?

And before I get branded a luddite, I want a much larger selection of buildings, skins for vehicles, more polygons on woods, and stuff like that, but it wont do me anygood until Foobar, and Pascal, and Chupacabra, and Admiral, and CavScout, and Chemg, and the 800 other people who I have played or hope to play in the future can play the game too. No fun to be the only guy able to play CM. It is only fun when you have friends to wail on one who can wail on you.