Guest MantaRay Posted January 25, 2000 Share Posted January 25, 2000 This is one of the most age diversive arguements that can come from a wargame. Older players do not seem to mind the graphics taking a hit quite like the newer and younger players do. I personally think that the better the graphics, the better the experience a game has. And I do not agree that the game play has to suffer to make better graphics. I dont understand why people think that yesterdays computers should be able to run todays games with all of the bells and whistles. I mean if the technology is there, why fight it? Especially when computers are getting easier and cheaper to obtain. I mean most people do not complain about paying $50 for a quality game, right? But when it comes to upgrading that P-133 to a P2-400, or buying a 3D Card for $150, it is like everyone just killed your mother. Technology has a price, and if you want better games, why not make your life a bit easier and spend a couple hundred bucks to be able to play? And I know that most will say that they shouldnt have to upgrade to play a game, but that is life. And wargamers SHOULD be the easiest people to get to buy better machines anyway!!!! Think about if our Average computer specs were higher, then wouldnt the few companies that make wargames be able to do more, and not be constrained by the majority of its customers only having low end rigs? And as most "hardcore" wargamers have much more disposible income than do other types of gamers, why not make your hobby better!!! Hell, models are now $50 a pop, and a lot of gamers I know dont have a problem paying for the paint and glue to put it together, so why worry about buying that new rig? Just my thoughts, Ray ------------------ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta Charlie 228 Posted January 25, 2000 Share Posted January 25, 2000 Hear! Hear! I agree with you ein hundert Prozent! Goddammit, CM 2 would be sooooo ausgezeichnet if it came with support for 3D cards and such! And such means, oh, voice-activation, 3D glasses support (the electronic "LCD" type), 5.1 DD audio, etc. BTS, I'd pay $100 for such a game AND on preorder!! But we're talking Mac folks here.... ;> It's funny, isn't it, that the games geared towards kids require $$$ in hardware, whereas those for older folks, who have more $$$, require less! If youth is wasted on the young, then money's wasted on the old! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted January 25, 2000 Share Posted January 25, 2000 I have some really great graphical games which fully use 3Dfx. Starfleet Command, Mechwarrior 3, Heavy Gear 2. However, I have probably spent more time on the Demo for CM than all of these. Good graphics only take you so far. Great gameplay can take you farther. I have been playing the graphically poor Pacific War since 1996, but, it has a wonderful strategic engine. TOAW has good looking graphics but isn't quite as refined. Sure, better graphics would be interesting, but, save this for later versions, or a CM upgrade when the average computer speed is a P500 vs. a P75 or less. [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 01-24-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Posted January 25, 2000 Share Posted January 25, 2000 Well, it all comes down to frame rate. How smoothly do you want the graphics to flow on the screen when a big battle is in progress? In wargames this is largely a luxury, since it isn't necessary to play the game well (although it is desirable). Now, if you plan on playing Quake II on the same system then you'll want all the speed you can get. Because in games like that frame rate isn't just a nicety but rather is essential to keeping your body from being blown into messy chunks (and the cleaning bills from that can add up fast ). As for me, I'm going to be getting a new system soon anyhow (something in the neighborhood of an AMD Athlon 850 mghz, 128 meg PC133 ram, voodoo 5500 video card... you get the idea ), so I'm all set either way to run even the most demanding games liquid smooth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Davie Posted January 25, 2000 Share Posted January 25, 2000 Lee; don't skimp on the ram. I recently went to 256 Mb, thinking that I'd migrate it over to a new machine in August, but I've seen such a speed boost that I'll put that much ram in the new machine as well. And frankly for me, the ram is a good investment whereas a souped up video card is a waste (actually was a waste), and ditto for the monitor save for working on large spreadsheets or in Word. My 2 Cdn cents. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zigster Posted January 25, 2000 Share Posted January 25, 2000 I got no opinion but here's a few truisms: Every major upgrade I ever made to my computer system since my old 12 Mhz XT with 640k RAM, except for one, has been driven by the desire to play some game that I couldn't run on my last generation machine. CM does need some graphic improvement. Not just for eye candy, but to increase realism, which I think is the whole point of CM in the first place. If I had to shell out a few hundred for a better video card to run CM, I'd probably do it. Due to only having one working eye in my rum-sodden head, I must frown on anything that requires 3D glasses though. [This message has been edited by Zigster (edited 01-24-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted January 25, 2000 Share Posted January 25, 2000 Guys, the reason that game companies don't make more wargames is that the wargame market is probably the smallest game sector except possibly side-scrollers (if there are any out there these days) It has nothing to do with what machines we have; it's just that people who want a solid, historically accurate wargame are a dying breed. Look back into the mid and late 80s, in the days when SSI was one of the biggest publishers out there. All them great games that people remember so fondly. Why did they sell so well? Well, one reason that I just yanked out of my butt is that, back in the Goodold Days, computers were even crankier and more esoteric than they are today. There was no plug-n-play, or InstallShields, or even Win9X. Just getting a computer to do word processing was a task requiring a Byzantine string of commands. The people best equipped to make computers do things like games were highly technically oriented, educated people who weren't afraid to muck about in the guts of a block of code to get something to run. In short, the same sort of people who make the best wargamers. Today, however, games are a matter of "put the disc in and let Windows do it for you." There's no need to get your hands dirty getting the game to run. That translates into fewer people wanting to play games that almost require them their hands dirty in the way that a wargame does. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta Charlie 228 Posted January 25, 2000 Share Posted January 25, 2000 Doug, we're talking bells & wistles in wargames, not the volume of output for the genre! For example, I was all set to get Talonsoft's "Battle of Britain" for $10 at a local Software, Etc. -- but then I read the reviews on how "it's a typical Gary Grigsby" affair (gamespot, IIRC), and that killed it for me. I can't get to see the gaming brillance of Pac War or any of that other GG stuff on my SSI "Wargame Classics Collections" CD 'cause it's so damned obscure! If I speak English, then talk to me in English, man! And now to hear that he's not improved his interface design philosophy in all this time -- aw, fudgedabowdit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Posted January 25, 2000 Share Posted January 25, 2000 Hey, Tom. I am considering getting 256 meg but that might be kinda pricey (especially if I get DDR ram). Even if my system doesn't have that much when I first get it I intend to add it in within 6 months. If the price isn't too steep I might just get it right off the bat, I'll have to see what the ram prices are looking like when I order the system. I wish ram prices would come back down to where they were (about $1 a meg ). By the way, how much ram did you have before you went to 256 meg? [This message has been edited by Lee (edited 01-24-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikeydz Posted January 25, 2000 Share Posted January 25, 2000 I think the main point that graphics aren't "hyper" realistic, which would require the faster, more powerful systmes, has everything to do with that wargaming is such a niche market. Because of the small size of the audience, BTS has to try and make sure that CM will be playable by a large percentage of that audience. In my line of work, I go into a lot of peoples homes on a daily basis, and you wouldn't believe the huge number of "low end" systems that are still out there chugging away. Considering that the average wargamers system will probably be more toward the lower end of the specrtum than the average gamers system, this is what BTS has to program with an eye toward. When you take this into account, I'm amazed at how good CM looks. CM is lightyears ahead of just about all other wargames currently, so lets not get too critical of some of the rough edges. Mikey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Davie Posted January 25, 2000 Share Posted January 25, 2000 Lee; I had 128 Mb before I went to 256. Windows 2000 was pretty snappy (compared to Windows 98) on 128 Mb, but I kept maxing out my virtual memory on big spreadsheets. With 256 there's no comparison. It was $237 Cdn for 128 Mb (eh, so that's about $161 US). You play Starfleet Command eh? Drop me an email (I lost yours when I switched to Win2K), and we'll have a game with unmodfied ships? Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dschugaschwili Posted January 25, 2000 Share Posted January 25, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MantaRay: This is one of the most age diversive arguements that can come from a wargame. Older players do not seem to mind the graphics taking a hit quite like the newer and younger players do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, there are young people out there who don't care about the beauty of graphics as long as the gameplay is good. (I'm thinking of me at the moment ) My point is, before complaining about ugly graphics or low frame rates I ask myself: do I need them for this particular game? And I don't need them in a game like CM. Actually, I don't need beautiful graphics in any game. The only reason why I MIGHT upgrade my computer within the next few months is the lack of adequate frame rates when playing modern FPSs even on low quality settings. So, to sum it up, I don't mind a game having high hardware requirements if I feel that the required resources are put to good use. But if all you get from your ultra-modern computer is eye-candy without reasonably complex game mechanics behind, then I usually get angry. Dschugaschwili [This message has been edited by Dschugaschwili (edited 01-25-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blindicide Posted January 25, 2000 Share Posted January 25, 2000 If it was just a question of replacing one piece of hardware with another then maybe,just maybe,I would agree with you.Unfortunately,as often as not things don't work out that way.I bought my current machine less than twelve months ago(PIII-450)which at the time was about as good as you could get,but which is probably below an entry level machine if there are 850's about. Back to the point I'm trying to get at,when I upgraded,the reason I bought a new machine was because to go from my old P-166 meant not only buying a new chip but a new motherboard,replacing all the RAM and buying a new case for it all to fit in.Then I would have found my old graphics card was so ancient that everything was slowed down to it's level and had to replace that.Then the cost of paying someone to put the new motherboard in(I don't mind putting in new cards,RAM etc but wouldn't go as far as a new board).All in all it would have come to rather more than $200,and the sound card,hard drives and modem would still have had to be done.And the end result?Less than twelve months later I'd find myself needing to do most of it all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindan Posted January 25, 2000 Share Posted January 25, 2000 IMO you just have to face and accept a simple fact regarding computers and games: The only possibility to loose your money faster is to burn it! Prices are dropping day by day and technical developement just races on. The time you buy a graphics-card the next generation is already completed. I consider one update per 18 months the norm. My machine is not nearly worth half the money now compared to 01/99 when I bought it. But it's getting better. I run a PII450, TNT2 card /w 16megs, 128MB SDRAM and it's pretty damned fast. The first and only game that would gime me huge headaches would be Ultima IX (didn't try it but I believe the reviews I read). If you want to be up to date with game developement you got no chance - upgrades are a must. Look at it as just a new kind of slavery... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted January 25, 2000 Share Posted January 25, 2000 I have kind of mixed feelings about this one. First, I believe CM2 should up the requirements a lot, it would make a better game. Being able to see every man and every tree would improve gameplay. Those claiming it wouldn't, are the same ones saying "3d in strategy game? Never!" I'd also like to see blood, flying hands and realistic explosions. On the other hand, I have 180 Mhz Mac with 48 MB:s of ram. If CM demanded more, I wouldn't have preordered. I simply won't spend $1000/year to keep my 'puter current. Instead, I buy a new Mac maybe every four years, and if something doesn't run, too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted January 25, 2000 Share Posted January 25, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have kind of mixed feelings about this one. First, I believe CM2 should up the requirements a lot, it would make a better game. Being able to see every man and every tree would improve gameplay. Those claiming it wouldn't, are the same ones saying "3d in strategy game? Never!"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have never said "3d in strategy game? Never!." However, seeing every man and every tree and have realistic looking explosions are all eyecandy. I don't see how they improve gameplay. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>On the other hand, I have 180 Mhz Mac with 48 MB:s of ram. If CM demanded more, I wouldn't have preordered. I simply won't spend $1000/year to keep my 'puter current. Instead, I buy a new Mac maybe every four years, and if something doesn't run, too bad.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is exactly the point I make. Ok, maybe this is a Mac issue. We tend to keep our machines longer than PC users (that is not a dig, its a fact). Other than a few tweaks here and there, I don't upgrade, I replace. Most Mac users operate the same way... its just more cost effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott C Posted January 25, 2000 Share Posted January 25, 2000 Actually, I find it more cost-effective to upgrade my Mac as far as possible before replacing it. Up till recently, my computer was an ~six-year-old PowerMac 6100/66. Original specs: 66 MHz 601, 8 MB RAM, <1 GB HD. By a year ago, it had: 215 MHz G3, 72 MB RAM, 4 GB HD. Total cost for those upgrades less than $1000 - and they let me keep using it for two more years (probably 3 usually, but special circumstances intervened). Now, however, I have a new system... 450 MHz G4, 256 MB RAM, 27 GB HD I find that the extra use you can get from upgrading the old system as far as it can bear reduces your costs substantially. ------------------ Questions, comments, arguments, refutations, criticisms, and/or sea stories? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest scurlock Posted January 25, 2000 Share Posted January 25, 2000 PC technology is advancing at such a rapid rate that it has been said that you don't buy a computer, you rent it for a year or two! I now build my computers from scratch in an effort to to maintain upgradability. Even this isn't foolproof. For instance my newest motherboard can't support 4x AGP graphics. My other computer's motherboard can't take advantage of Ultra 66 DMA hard drives. Then there's the new 133MHZ memory chips, new slot formats for CPU's etc. Most software producers will write games for the majority of PCs in use, not the hotest machines on the market. This effort must be ballanced by the ever present pressure to push software to the next level. The net result... like I said, you end up "renting" your computer for a year or two. ------------------ Eric Scurlock "He who gets there the fastest with the mostest wins." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted January 25, 2000 Share Posted January 25, 2000 I think that in the future advanced software technologies, which scale the polygon count with the available hardware, will keep the minimum requirements lower than nowadays. References: <ul> [*]Level of Detail (Combat Mission ?) [*]Dynamic Level of Detail [*]Multi Resolution Meshes http://developer.intel.com/ial/3dsoftware/mrm.htm http://developer.intel.com/ial/3dsoftware/gamedev.htm http://www.digimation.com/plugins/multires/bodymain.htm (Battlezone II, Dark Reign 2, Team Fortress 2) [*]Multi Resolution Geometry, http://www.sven-tech.com/ (Duke Nukem Forever, Slave Zero, LithTech 2 Engine) [*]Realtime Deformation and Tesselation (Messiah, http://www.shiny.com/ , ) [*] Regards, Thomm Source: c't magazin f&umml;r computer technik 1/2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MantaRay Posted January 25, 2000 Share Posted January 25, 2000 Yes, the MRM engine is going to take down the specs a bit for the lower end machines. But in a way I dont think too many companies will take advantage of it due to the time frame in an engines life. Ray ------------------ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted January 26, 2000 Share Posted January 26, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I have never said "3d in strategy game? Never!." However, seeing every man and every tree and have realistic looking explosions are all eyecandy. I don't see how they improve gameplay.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ok, so you didn't say so, but still.. ..I disagree, exept for the explosions, those are candy. Seeing every unit would give much better info about what's happening. But it's pointless to debate over this, since there are no examples, you just have to believe it or not. And even eye candy is good, it enchances the game experience. For example, I think just about everyone is happy there are textures on vechiles and buildings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoop88 Posted January 26, 2000 Share Posted January 26, 2000 Very interesting reading. Computer upgrades are such a dilemma ... no matter how much you spend it's outdated almost from the moment you get it running. You just have to bite the bullet, put the money down and swallow real hard. I'd be interested in reading posts from anyone who leases a computer and how that works out. I'm a Mac user and would like to know of any leasing opportunities available for Macs other than for businesses. I haven't seen any for home users, like the ones that are available for PC home users. I just upgraded to a G4 and I'm amazed how improved CM's graphics are compared to the G3 I had been using. Graphically I'm pretty satisifed with CM ... The biggest need is for representation of dead/wounded, even though that topic has been thoroughly discussed on this board. It's not just because I want to see blood, but because it's easier to track what has happened to your units. Many times in a CM scenario I'm looking for a particular unit and it takes awhile to find out that it's a casualty because casualties just "disappear" and are no longer represented graphically. Sorry to beat a dead horse (or, in this case, a dead GI), but lack of casualty representation is, to me, the game's biggest shortcoming. Not a showstopper by any means, because CM is still far and away the best tactical level game I've ever played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted January 26, 2000 Share Posted January 26, 2000 Just to let you guys know I am running CM (beta) on two seperate machines. A PII 450 w/ v7700 (32mb) and 128 RAM and a PII 366 notebook (4mb S3 3d, 128mb RAM). Both machines run CM2 fine though on the notebook the graphics are at 640x480 res and the 450 at 1024 res. On teh 450 (my main test machine) I am running huge maps (one is a 1k by 3k+ strip) alls howing at once with many many units and there is absolutely no performance hit at all. The notebook would be chunk trying to do that but smaller maps are fine. My point is this: I think RAM is good to have, 128mb if you can ebcasue in the beginning of each turn there are lots of calculations in the bigger scenarios and operations, so that helps alot (as well as CPU speed). Now that doesn't mean 128 is the minimum, I haven't tried it on one of my machine swith less than 128. As far as graphics go, I'd say have a 3d card with more than 4mb. At least 8 or 16, and these babies are damn cheap nowadays. Like I said, large maps and large forces do not require a wazoo machine to run smoothly. Anyway that's my little non technical report. Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted January 26, 2000 Share Posted January 26, 2000 Jarmo, I personally believe that seeing every man in a unit or every tree in a woodline wouldn't up the gamePLAY all that much. Here's why: When an infantry unit is fired upon, CM currently looks at the unit's footprint, calculates cover, incoming volume of fire, etc etc, and decides whether or not a guy is hit. Even if CM showed individual men graphically, the ability to have the ENGINE see those individual men is still quite some time off, at least for home users. So when an infantry unit takes fire, the engine would still look at the footprint, yada yada, and then make the decision. If it decides a guy is hit, it'll just grab a random dude, have him fall down and disappear, and then reduce the squad's footprint by all that much. In such a situation, I think there would be a howl of fury about "the game doesn't actually hit any one guy, it just picks one guy from the squad" that would be the equal (or better) of the howls we get now about "the squads don't show every man." DjB ps please don't take any of this as an attack, because it's not meant to be. You stated your opinion constructively, and I'm responding with mine own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted January 27, 2000 Share Posted January 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Originally posted by Doug Beman: When an infantry unit is fired upon, CM currently looks at the unit's footprint, calculates cover, incoming volume of fire, etc etc, and decides whether or not a guy is hit. Even if CM showed individual men graphically, the ability to have the ENGINE see those individual men is still quite some time off, at least for home users. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmm.. you have a point. yes, I'd want the engine upgraded as well Maybe in time for CM3. So for CM2, just better explosions thank you. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ps please don't take any of this as an attack, because it's not meant to be. You stated your opinion constructively, and I'm responding with mine own.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> YOU BASTARD!! DIE! DIE!! DIE!!! Your mother was a hamster and... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts