CM2: Will it live up to our high expectations?

[Mr. Johnson--]

OMG!!

All hail TIGER!!

He got it so right. We don't want CM:2,3,4 turned into mindless crap. This is a good operation, lets keep it that way.

[grunto2]

it seems like a lot of the features people are asking for here are going to be delivered in the next release after cm2.

my understanding is that cm2 is going to be the same engine as cmbo with units from the russian front.

then later on there will be 'cm2+' with trenches, different soviet command structure, mine dogs (just kidding), etc.

does anyone have a list of what changes we might see in the first cm2, with its, 'same engine as cmbo?' i mean, will there at least be some new terrain tiles or 'somefink?'

andy

[Mattias]

Stacheldrat,

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

[QB] Not by any means my words. Just to set the record straight, should that be the implication. Also a straw man argument, since I don't recall seeing anyone asking for graphics improvements over all else in CM. That would be an odd argument to hear from a gamer in any context, actually.

QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No that I did not imply. I get the feeling you are alternately reading too much or to little into my words.

Just as you I see CM as a whole, no part separated from the other. The sum making CM the great game it is. Personally I rank graphics low in importance, but that is a purely subjective standpoint and does not change anything in relation to the fundamental agreement.

However, over the past 12-18 months the debate over the strengths and weaknesses of CM’s graphics has been a reoccurring one.

People have time and again asked for improvements in graphics very much “over all else”, in the sense that they have requested changes and updates that would fundamentally clash with the current design of the CM engine. The direction such changes could/would take CM in general causes polarisation. The diverse backgrounds and priorities of the CM players simply makes it a touchy subject.

In the end it is all in the hands of BTS of course, but until things are written in stone we are discussing things from our own, widely scattered, perspectives.

Hence the potential for nerve.

Cheers!

M.

[ 04-19-2001: Message edited by: Mattias ]

[ferdinand]

I feel that the improvements to the engine should be first to the AI, as the graphics do the job, and quite nicely, while the Tac AI has still some shortcomings.

So I hope BTS will spend more time tweaking the AI than trying to add tank tracks in the snow.

[Stacheldraht]

Mattias, understood

Re: the AI, that's something I'd like to put in another vote for. Yes, CM's AI is suprisingly good in many ways, but for experienced players, it often provides little challenge, unless you give the computer overwhelming force strength and experience bonuses, or play very well designed scenarios. I mean, I played a QB ME (QB may be the problem) the other day where the enemy had 150 casualties and surrendered, and I had only 15 casualties. That's become pretty common, as I've been playing for some time now. (I know about PBEM'ing and TCP/IP games, of course, but those aren't always feasible.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think one reason that you hear from users with high end machines here is simple.

If I got a great new system, I would post and tell everyone about it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that's one issue and maybe true for some people, but hoping for improvements in the CM series that take full advantage of those systems is another issue. When you play lots of games in many genres and see just what can be done with graphics, it's natural to want to see similarly incredible graphics in CM--obviously not at the expense of historical accuracy or depth, but as someone said, those are already in place.

[Tiger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTS shouldn't have to cater to high-end users at the expense of low-end users. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I wrote this and gave an example of the tracks in the snow. If a high-end user gets graphical advantages over a low-end user then the game design itself has become unbalanced and you'll get two factions. I used to be in the crowd that bought the newest video card and fastest cpu everytime it came out but there comes a day when you realize you can't do that anymore (unless you're well-off).

There's absolutely nothing wrong with graphical improvements however moaning and bitching that BTS make games more like the ones that have a big publisher and a large team and a couple of years to work on it, is really unfair, esp when the product we already have is superior in gameplay to most of these other big-publisher titles. Someone mentioned Black and White. Head on over to Gonegold.com and check out the review on it. Lots and lots of bugs, including graphical errors. Bad press on the tedious gameplay as well. I do think B&W is a good game myself though, I'm still playing CMBO more than it (B&W lasted about 3 days for me).

Anyway I wouldn't frett over CM2 too much as I've heard rumor that CM2 will have around 4 times the graphical detail as CMBO. Just a rumor mind you

-Tiger

[aka_tom_w]

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

Anyway I wouldn't frett over CM2 too much as I've heard rumor that CM2 will have around 4 times the graphical detail as CMBO. Just a rumor mind you

-Tiger<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right ON!!!!

"I've heard rumor that CM2 will have around 4 times the graphical detail as CMBO"

Only a rumour I know......

but that sounds GREAT!!

-tom w

[ 04-19-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[ 04-19-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[SlowMotion]

I wonder if this rumour about 4 times the graphical detail means that scenarios would be made of smaller tiles (one 20m x 20 m tile would be broken into 4 10m x 10m tiles) or that the vehicle models etc would have more polygons? Or maybe both?

[ 04-19-2001: Message edited by: SlowMotion ]

[Stacheldraht]

Tiger, I believe it was me who mentioned B&W in the context of graphics, specifically meaning the high poly counts viewable from nearly any angle or distance. (I agree with the less enthusiastic reviews of B&W myself, btw, and find it a bore, but the graphics are certainly impressive and create a visually immersive world.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Yes I wrote this and gave an example of the tracks in the snow. If a high-end user gets graphical advantages over a low-end user then the game design itself has become unbalanced and you'll get two factions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not necessarily. More detailed/higher poly models won't give anyone an advantage or unbalance the game, just make it look better, and therefore make it more enjoyable. The example with tracks is a different matter, for the reasons you state.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>moaning and bitching <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who's moaning and bitching? It looks like most people here (at least in this thread) interested in CM's graphics and possible or desirable improvements to them in CM2 (and beyond) are making serious, polite suggestions, not whining or complaining. There's a substantial difference.

It's no more moaning and bitching than asking or suggesting that the Sturmtiger be in CM (ah, the old days), or that MG squads can run, or that Allied tanks get a different proportion of tungsten rounds, and so forth.

[Stacheldraht]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We don't want CM:2,3,4 turned into mindless crap. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who on earth does?

[Mattias]

Ok, since we pretty much agree on why we disagree I’ll go ahead and point out an important factor from my perspective

The fear that CM might gradually fall to the state of “mindless crap” is actually founded in past experience.

Though the exact extent of the decay is debatable it is common knowledge that Close Combat dropped sharply in quality after CC2. CC3 kept up the pretence of a realistic game despite being pretty awful in comparison to CC2. The disguise was completely dropped as CC4 was released and the “mindless crap” stage was reached. CC5 looks like a step in the right direction, but by then up was the only direction available.

No one wanted that. It happened because Microsoft wanted to broaden the appeal of the game, by completely gutting it. What they failed to realise was that depth and complexity, while related, are far from identical.

This is where CM excels, it manages to present an accessible, fast and fun simulation that has great depth beneath the smooth surface.

Now, and this is my main point, this “mental” decline could happen to CM too. The fact is that historical accuracy or depth are not at all “in place”.

Just as visual quality extends on a great sliding scale from nothing to full real life 3D, so does the quality of the interpretation/simulation of the combat environment.

As it stands now CM delivers a competent and well rounded abstraction of the fighting in the west during 1944 and 45. BTS has every reason to be proud of as it compares very well with paper and computer games covering the same era and scale.

But, as this forum shows when it is at its best, there are always new and potentially better ways of simulating different aspects of combat. Of course BTS ultimately picks the level for their ambition, but one can always go further into the subject of historical accuracy and depth.

So much for going deep on the subject, however…

BTS could “just” pump out all the new 3D models and skins, make the scenarios, upgrade the look of the interface and hey presto! CM2:Barbarossa to Berlin…

But that would be exactly the kind of “failure” that would put CM on a downward slope. In the eyes of those who notices that is.

CM2 is not CM:BO, it takes place in an environment that is radically different than the one portrayed in CM’s first incarnation. The geographical and temporal scope is massive and there is a multitude of unique aspects of the warfare. The truly big challenge for BTS will be to capture the “essence” of the eastern front in the same way that they have managed to balance and spice the west 44-45 to such a palatable brew.

In this context the very ambitious standard of quality that BTS has set in CM:BO will spill over onto CM2. Just as some would instantly notice a degradation in graphical quality, some will notice a degradation in the interpretation of the combat environment.

And it is here that those of us that take a great interest in the subject matter are hoping that BTS will be able to pull yet another rabbit out of the hat. But we also, because of our great interest, know something of the problems that BTS will be facing in accomplishing this.

And that’s why some say; screw the graphics, they are already in place!

M

[ParaBellum]

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

And that’s why some say; screw the graphics, they are already in place!

M <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, gameplay and historical accuracy are more important to me than some fancy graphics.

But then...

Last week I had to reinstall CM and then played it "naked" e.g. without all those beautiful hi-res mods. To tell the truth, I was a little bit "shocked". I hadn't seen the pure CM graphics for a looong time and was already so much used to hi-res grass, trees, buildings and units that the difference to what I saw now was amazing.

If CM2 came out without at least SOME graphical improvements I would indeed be a little bit disappointed.

[Stacheldraht]

Mattias, good points. I certainly don't think we have anything to fear from BTS along the lines of watering down the historical accuracy or complexity of future CM games, since those facets of the game are clearly and rightly near and dear to them--and to us, the players and customers.

For the very reasons you and others have mentioned or alluded to, I don't think anyone needs to fear a dramatic decline in the quality of BTS' games precisely because they are a little indie developer that only sells games online through Battlefront.com. I don't see MS, Sierra, Eidos, or Infogrames or whoever rushing to buy them out and then try to popularize a hardcore wargame.

Any decision to focus on graphical (or any other) improvements to the series would be based on BTS' decisions alone, hopefully considering fan input, since we pay their bills. Realistically, of course, since BTS is a tiny operation, there's only so much time and energy they can put into their games, and again, for the reasons you state (and what BTS has said on this board), graphical improvements will take a back seat to merely trying to get all the new units, terrain, and rules in place to simulate Ostfront combat in an enjoyable and realistic way.

[Mord]

I don't think any of us here are saying that we would like to see better graphics at the expense of historical accuracy and game play. I have yet to read where anyone has ever suggested such a thing. That line of arguing always comes out whenever better graphics are brought up. What would be the point of playing a graphically awsome historical simulation game if there wasn't any historical simulating and just some gee wiz fine pictures running around shooting each other? It would be just another game. We pro graphic guys aren't asking for the history to be left by the way side. It's part of what makes CM so great....and so are the graphics.

I think that both the graphics and the game play can be improved as the series continues as it is only a natural evolution when making games. And I think we will all get alittle of what we'd like to see in the next installment.

Mord.

[Tiger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It's no more moaning and bitching than asking or suggesting that the Sturmtiger be in CM <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

By god the Brummbar better be in or I'll I'll...

Seriously though I'd still be happy if an increase in graphical detail would be possible but left up to the independent modders so BTS can get this out sooner. Of course, with KwazyDog "on the job" (heh) I'm sure we'll see some really nice graphics to start with.

-Tiger