GFX HW gimmicks in CM2?

[Stacheldraht]

I've read the Manifesto, though I for one don't treat it as the sacred writ some seem to. It's fine as mission statement, no doubt.

Again, though, it would appear that many of us believe that gameplay and graphics aren't two separate issues and/or that graphics are an integral or at least very important part of CM. Certainly, all things being equal, improved graphics would improve the game. I of course realize that BTS is a tiny indie developer with very little manpower, and they need to set realistic priorities.

Part of BTS's success, it would seem, stems from its willingness to listen to and serve its customer base. Well, part of that base is very much interested in graphics. The fact that thread after thread about the matter has arisen on this forum helps illustrate that. At the same time, I rather doubt anyone who plays CM is primarily or exclusively interested in the graphics of the game. Then again, if they are, that's their prerogrative, and there's no reason to dismiss their interests any more than dismissing the interests of someone arguing over the metallurgical properties a certain tank model's armor. And it's unfortunately clear that a vocal group, perhaps even a vocal minority, has often risen to stridently dismiss the interests of those seeking graphics improvements.

[deanco]

Damm good post.

[deanco]

...and I'm getting a bit tired of hearing, "time that could be spent on core gameplay issues". When are you people going to realize that Good graphics IS a core gameplay issue. As Stacheldraht so eloquently poined out, graphics and gameplay are like 2 playing cards. Each alone can't stand up, but together, propped up against each other, can. Then you could go farther and say that sound, interface, intro movies, cool in game animations, color choices, cool looking menus, and what have you, go hand in hand with good game rules, elegance of implementation, excellent AI, ergonomics, fun factor, and what have you. If you think of all those factors as playing cards too (I do), finally one is capable of creating a quite complex structure. A complex structure where ALL the various elements are interdependant. Ahhhh, Stacheldraht said it best, go read his post again.

[SadBloke]

there was no need for ron to make this into some kind of heated debate unless of course he feels threatened

I'll tell you this though - the majority of non hardcore wargamers wont find a simple texture/bmp, sceanario, and unit addon with tweaks an essential or even worthwhile purchase.

graphics - it creates the immersion and contributes a lot to the atmosphere. The close combat games are grating now, no engine updates for a while, whats the point in simply paying for new units a tweaked system and some new maps. a new engine can breathe new life into a game.

anyway im retarded so any more continuation by me will result in mass vomiting worldwide

[Tiger]

No one wouldn't mind better graphics, however you are not taking into account that BTS is currently 4 people, and they *do* plan on rewriting the game engine in a game or two (have you not been listening?) .

There's a difference about suggesting for better graphics and demanding them. If you personally don't mind waiting 2 years for the next CM release simply to include t&l, bump mapping, and dynamic lighting, that doesn't mean everyone else has to want to wait with you. Knowing BTS and knowing the things they would like to do in the future and having read their comments, I think it's obvious they are moving in the direction of improved graphics. Suggesting otherwise simply because it won't be done immediately for CMBO or CMBB, and then arguing that everyone who doesn't agree with your "GIVE US THIS STUFF NOW!" approach is "anti-graphics improvement", is silly.

I thik its great that BTS is not ignoring the lower end users from around the world and not doing what most big-name publishers do: quickly release crappy games but with cool graphics.

BTS's Manifesto is a guide, not a be-all-end-all for graphics, and if you believe in what they have been saying about this, you'd know this. Me, give me better gameplay over graphics anyday because I know I can mod them while being patient until the next engine rewrite occurs.

-Tiger

[deanco]

Sorry for the multiple posts but this really peeves me. Because lemme tell you what my philosophy is behind the interfaces I made. It's,

"Eye candy, yes. But in the service of gameplay".

There are 2 reasons why I color some labels differently than others. It adds color, and it alerts the player to a situation that he might like to be aware of. It looks cool, and it's useful at the same time.

But now it's like you're saying, 'don't think about eye candy, just gameplay is important'. So what's the point of being creative then? As long as I make the labels big enough so you can easily read them, is that all you care about? So, If I make a black letters on white background interface for CM2, with no frills at all, just the labels, y'all won't mind one bit?

Is this what you're saying? I'm interested in your answer, this is like research.

[Stacheldraht]

DeanCo, very well said with the playing cards analogy.

Tiger, I don't think people are demanding anything, but rather trying to make sure their input is heard and treated respectfully. Presumably most people here are paying customers of BTS, or soon will be, and as such, it's in BTS' and our best interest (i.e., in terms of what we see in future games) to let everyone voice their desires (not demands) for the CM games.

I for one feel that improvements to a game shouldn't need to be made by the user. It's nice that you and others provide them, and we're of course thankful for all the great mods out there, but I'd rather have the best game possible directly from the publisher, when I install it, not months later, if I'm lucky.

[Ron]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I've read the Manifesto, though I for one don't treat it as the sacred writ some seem to. It's fine as mission statement, no doubt.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sacred writ? I would hazard a guess and say Steve and Charles, being two intelligent guys, wrote and posted that piece for fundamental reasons other than to grab attention or elicit a *cult* following. Then again one fellow insisted on referring to BTS as "High Priests" so who knows another's interpretations.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Again, though, it would appear that many of us believe that gameplay and graphics aren't two separate issues and/or that graphics are an integral or at least very important part of CM. Certainly, all things being equal, improved graphics would improve the game. I of course realize that BTS is a tiny indie developer with very little manpower, and they need to set realistic priorities.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, the graphics are there to serve the gameplay, CM wouldn't be the same game otherwise but what purpose does rotating wheels, or wheels that 'stick out', or better 'explosions', to use examples used here, serve other than to *look* good and provide a momentary thrill? No one has said the graphics should stay as they are, and BTS has said repeatedly they will advance the graphics. The question then is what graphics improvements BTS considers necessary to move CM forward. Are non-functional bells and whistles necessary?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Part of BTS's success, it would seem, stems from its willingness to listen to and serve its customer base. Well, part of that base is very much interested in graphics. The fact that thread after thread about the matter has arisen on this forum helps illustrate that. At the same time, I rather doubt anyone who plays CM is primarily or exclusively interested in the graphics of the game. Then again, if they are, that's their prerogrative, and there's no reason to dismiss their interests any more than dismissing the interests of someone arguing over the metallurgical properties a certain tank model's armor. And it's unfortunately clear that a vocal group, perhaps even a vocal minority, has often risen to stridently dismiss the interests of those seeking graphics improvements.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would imagine BTS is designing wargames because that is where their passion lays, else they would be doing RTS or FPSs. I don't know what direction they plan on taking or what 'audience' they want to cater to, but you can't be all things to all people. A wargamer usually has a strong interest in history and at its heart a wargame, a niche product, is an intellectual challenge, not a visceral thrill or pretty picture. So with that in mind, what do you think is more applicable? The metallurgical properties of a certain tank model's armour or your TC flashing his brilliant pearly whites after scoring a kill?

Ron

[deanco]

Hi Ron,

Would you answer my question please? Thank you.

[Ron]

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

Sorry for the multiple posts but this really peeves me. Because lemme tell you what my philosophy is behind the interfaces I made. It's,

"Eye candy, yes. But in the service of gameplay".

There are 2 reasons why I color some labels differently than others. It adds color, and it alerts the player to a situation that he might like to be aware of. It looks cool, and it's useful at the same time.

But now it's like you're saying, 'don't think about eye candy, just gameplay is important'. So what's the point of being creative then? As long as I make the labels big enough so you can easily read them, is that all you care about? So, If I make a black letters on white background interface for CM2, with no frills at all, just the labels, y'all won't mind one bit?

Is this what you're saying? I'm interested in your answer, this is like research.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think we're talking at cross purposes here. The interface, what I would call 'functional' graphics, and how it is perceived/used by the gamer is important. I have never said otherwise. Eye candy is just that IMO, it doesn't add to the gameplay at all.

Ron

[Tiger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...you're saying, 'don't think about eye candy, just gameplay is important'<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope. What I'm saying is that most of us realize that a new engine rewrite is in the works, just not for CMBB nor maybe the next CM game. However there will always be improvements. Suggesting additional improvements and enhancements is great. However getting upset and uptight because they aren't being done *right now* for the next game (CMBB) is impatient, selfish, and not acknowleding that changes are planned for the future.

People seem very willing to chastise BTS and any who disagree with this "DO IT RIGHT NOW" approach yet will not acknowledge that an engine rewrite is planned already.

Tell me why you should not have to wait for the planned engine rewrite and how long you think it will take and how you think BTS should go about it. Give me real-world working strategies to achieve this not wishlists and hazy notions. Take into account # of employees, financing till it's done in two years, etc etc. You can't. Why? Because it's easy to make wishlists and demands without having to actually implement them yourselves.

BTS: We hereby suggest that you cease all work on CMBB and instead concentrate on a new engine rewrite. Know that you will need to hire around a dozen new employees, management and finacial advisors. Further, we think you should make plans to have current revenues last until the sales from the new game based on your new engine come out two years from now. Suggest you get a "big-time" publisher such as Hasbro or Sierra, even Microsoft.

We're sure it will be hugely successful and that no other competitors will emerge in the meantime.

Please understand that these are only suggestions, though we believe we know what is right for you. How do we know this you may ask yourselves? Why because we play games of course, silly.

ps~ my new graphic card supports doo-hicky bi-partical streaming anti-gyro morphing. While we acknowledge not everyone has this nor will everyone in two years, we think there's enough of a minority to include this and it's subsequent extra development time. Please make the next engine scalable to include any new graphics features that may occur in the next 2 years.

*wave magic wand* it is done!

-Tiger

[deanco]

Thank you Ron. I'm glad we are in agreement that the interface should be aesthetically pleasing.

But you know what, I'm a little bit worried after reading your post. Now I'm worried I'm spending TOO MUCH TIME working on the interface. Of course Steve and Charles are looking at everything I do, and this is consuming their time. Time that could be spent doing historical research and what have you. They have to answer my emails, clarify, etc etc. So Ron, what I'm asking is this : how much time is too much time, in your opinion?

Lemme put it another way. Let's say I'm working on the interface, and it's looking 'not bad'. Should I stop, or should I work on it some more, until I get it to look 'good'? Or maybe should I put even more work in, until it looks 'great'? And of course, I COULD go all out and try to make it look 'perfect'. But hey...is that really necessary? For the lousy interface?

Let's say that an equal amount of work is required to go from 'level' to 'level'. Ron, where should I stop working? When does it become counterproductive from a 'taking resources away from gameplay issues' aspect? Should I take a bit less 'pride in my work' to insure that other valuable time resources are not being wasted? Thanks.

[Ron]

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

Thank you Ron. I'm glad we are in agreement that the interface should be aesthetically pleasing.

But you know what, I'm a little bit worried after reading your post. Now I'm worried I'm spending TOO MUCH TIME working on the interface. Of course Steve and Charles are looking at everything I do, and this is consuming their time. Time that could be spent doing historical research and what have you. They have to answer my emails, clarify, etc etc. So Ron, what I'm asking is this : how much time is too much time, in your opinion?

Lemme put it another way. Let's say I'm working on the interface, and it's looking 'not bad'. Should I stop, or should I work on it some more, until I get it to look 'good'? Or maybe should I put even more work in, until it looks 'great'? And of course, I COULD go all out and try to make it look 'perfect'. But hey...is that really necessary? For the lousy interface?

Let's say that an equal amount of work is required to go from 'level' to 'level'. Ron, where should I stop working? When does it become counterproductive from a 'taking resources away from gameplay issues' aspect? Should I take a bit less 'pride in my work' to insure that other valuable time resources are not being wasted? Thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol ok

Listen deanco, for the low price of $2.99(US) a minute I can answer ALL of your questions and concerns. I have had hundreds of satisfied clients, time is of no concern as I take pride in my work. My email is in my Profile, write to arrange a meeting. And no, thank you...

Ron

[Stacheldraht]

Tiger, who has petulantly demanded anything here?

No one, as far as I can tell. Most of us are expressing our "wish list," unrealistic as it may or may not be, and carrying on a discussion that's pretty important if you're interested in game design and/or game marketing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>wargame, a niche product, is an intellectual challenge, not a visceral thrill or pretty picture. So with that in mind, what do you think is more applicable? The metallurgical properties of a certain tank model's armour or your TC flashing his brilliant pearly whites after scoring a kill?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's an intentional misrepresentation of the sorts of changes a number of people have said they'd like to see in the graphics of the games. No need to inject mean-spirited hyperbole.

One point to bear in mind, is that, yes, wargames have traditionally been a niche product, but CM has shown that that needn't entirely be the case. It's clear that its appeal is at least somewhat broader than that, and for good reason. It's more sophisticated and interesting, in terms of game design, than your average wargame. I seriously, doubt, too, that most wargamers and armchair historians find their primary or exclusive enjoyment about WWII or other military matters exclusively in the form of abstract intellectualism or mental challenges. There were other detailed wargames before. Why is CM popular? I doubt it's exclusively or even primarily just because of its historical accuracy or pure logical intellectual stimulation--certainly not for all players.

[ 04-26-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

[Panzer Leader]

Deanco we all love you and your beautiful work.

Please don't let hard-liners and wing-nuts cause you to stray from the path

[deanco]

Don't worry, Panzer Leader. It was a rhetorical question anyway. I'm not serious.

I feel pretty silly for getting bent out of shape, really. Sorry folks. Happens to everyone I guess.

(edit) Been in contact with Ron, he's a very nice guy, everything is cool. Now back to work. (/edit)

[ 04-26-2001: Message edited by: deanco ]

[Tiger]

Stacheldraht, anyone who says they don't prefer glitz graphics over gameplay doesn't mean they are anti-graphics or that they're saying you shouldn't wish for these things. I think it's just personal preferences being opinionated here, that if you have to choose, which we currently do (not so much choice really), that some would prefer gameplay to graphics, graphics eyecandy that many would not benefit from right away but would take a good bit of extra development time. It's just personal preferences people are expressing, nothing more nothing less.

-Tiger

[Andrew H.]

Stacheldraht is correct that neither he nor any other graphics people (for lack of a better word) demanded anything; they did pose a reasonable question.

But I think people responded as they did because this discussion has frequently come up before (do a search!),did involve a lot of demanding, a lot of acrimony, and eventually, locked threads and the creation of alt.combat-mission (or whatever that's called). So given that history, its hard for people not to overreact a bit when yet another person brings up bump mapping, dynamic lighting, etc.

At some point, I think someone had some information listing the specifics as to what computers most people have; they were on the low end. Also, regardless of the RAM and speed, most entry-level computers you find at places like Best Buy don't even have an AGP slot. Without an AGP slot, it doesn't matter how cheap GeForce VII's become.

But the time concern is the big concern. I don't want to wait 2 years for CM2, and I don't think most people want to either.

[Barleyman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

But the time concern is the big concern. I don't want to wait 2 years for CM2, and I don't think most people want to either.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately that's what's it going to take.

For the CM-with-rewritten-engine anyways.

Apparently whatever is done with 1st gen engine is going to be named along "CM:Route 66" convention whereas when (if) BTS rewrites the engine it's going to be named in "CM2:Chrome Panzers" or something.

I think I've seen BTS guys speculating that they might make another game with CM engine after B2B .. That's going to feel like same old thing unless the game style evolves.. CC2 was a great game, but CC3, CC4 and CC5 were just the same thing all over.. With same mickey-mousey AI!

[Thomm]

Check out article on Doom III technology at http://www.geocities.com/lordflathead/zaldron.html . Some interesting pictures. As usual quite irrelevant for Combat Mission-like games.

Maybe the bump-map animation works here, too:

Regards, Thomm

[SadBloke]

... i know this might sound harsh.. but the current engine is sh*te by todays/yesterdays/last years/year befores standards. it works. and its effective.

and it HASN'T spoilt the enjoyment.

but i can envisage mainstream reviews of the game: "this will only appeal to hardcore combat mission fans" - and yes your going to say (or rather, you've already said) that BTS aren't wanting to inflitrate mainstream or whatever...

i honestly didn't know that the team solely consisted of the 4 team members and you lot helping out on the forums with bug testing the demo or something?

and its definately an achievement.

you have to think about the possiblities a new graphical engine could bring. currently its not very good at all... making maps etc is fun for the first few trys, and its still a pretty damn good way of doing things.. but its no-where near powerful enough.. its not ALL asthetic (spelt right?)

none (or at least most of us) wouldnt be able to write up a proper plan of action etc.... or whatever, and i very much doubt those who could would.. its not their job after all we are simply fans of the game giving our own biased opinons and suggestions.

close combat can get away with flogging its engine because its functional.. but can be as detailed as the map maker wants..

anyway i'd rather not go on or you'll simply talk me down.. we just like to voice or opinons, whether worthy or not.

[SadBloke]

omg.. i just relised i cant speak english... even though i was born and bred here godamn ages ago..... someone hurt me...

btw if you dont understand a word i said.. just ignore me

[deanco]

You're fine, SadBloke. I can dig.

[Panther131]

Remember, here in the CM forum in BTS land, we all get shelled for asking simple obvious questions

[Andrew H.]

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

... i know this might sound harsh.. but the current engine is sh*te by todays/yesterdays/last years/year befores standards. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think that's right, even. What older game (or even newer game) can push as many polygons as CM?