Does anyone actually mind the look?

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

I have some active threads out there in the worlds I wander.

I am wondering, how many people here actually give a damn, that SC has a 1970's looking wargame mapboard look.

Does it bother you that the game looks so dated?

Is anyone here living in fear, that someone will find out they play a game that looks more like a board game than a computer game?

Just wondering.

[ January 17, 2003, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: Les the Sarge 9-1b ]

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1b:

I have some active threads out there in the worlds I wander.

I am wondering, how many people here actually give a damn, that SC has a 1970's looking wargame mapboard look.

Does it bother you that the game looks so dated?

Is anyone here living in fear, that someone will find out they play a game that looks more like a board game than a computer game?

Just wondering.

LMAO when i first got the game i thought it was dated. Until i looked under the Hood that is. I love the look it means the Emphasis has been placed on the mechanics of the game not on Frivilous "Eye Candy".

[Kuniworth]

I always said that I would like to have Strategic command map look a bit like the game Road to Moscow. Imagine this look;

http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/zones/previews/nov98/rtm07.html

[SeaWolf_48]

I don't mind the look of the game at all. However I do mind that the proportions of the map, they are so off. I think that they should take more care making the European map to scale! Mountains have only one scale, the mountains in Turkey and the Alps are the same? The rivers and forest are just placed by someones memory, not according to geographics. Islands are missing, Corsica, Iceland, Greenland, Cos, etc. There are no beaches, you can invade any hex. The Murmansk Convoy route is missing, North Africa needs two more hexes, well, the map has real problems, not with the look, but with it's proportions! The game is great, but I think it could have a better map!

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

Actually being a classic wargamer. I turn that hex grid on and enjoy the game!

Now if I could only see the dice rolls. LOL

[Hudson]

Hmm Road to Moscow is just a big bitmapped image of a map with old looking unit icons that move on it. Not that impressive. It looks good and artistic yes, but I am an old grognard (well, ok, I am only 33 but still...) and I like my HEXES and I actually like a board that looks like Avalon Hills Panzer Leader lol.

AS long as the game plays well I dont care. However I do not want it as ugly as Russo German War. I do like some sound effects and some effort in the interface. Russo German war was so basic and terribly made I couldnt play it.

[Archibald]

I've tried many of the beautiful icons that have been modded for the game, but in the end I've come back to using Hubert's originals. They give a great deal of information at a glance and work very well indeed.

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Kuni I actually like the look of that map myself.

I liked the way the map for the old game Patton Strike Back was done.

It was basically just a map image. The units were movement constrained like they always are, but it was in your face obvious.

I have looked at the mods for the counters, some look kinda neat, but I have to admit, Hubert did a nice job in the first place.

If you compare the original map for Third Reich with the paper mapsheet done for Advanced Third Reich, you get the same result, that asking for the SC map to be drawn a slight bit different entails.

But in the end, both would be defacto retro in style ie maps with hexes and uniform terrain design.

I find it refreshing though, to hear you guys can "like" a game, even if it is not bells and whistles.

[pzgndr]

What Archibald said. I use the original unit sprites tweaked to show Russians and eastern Allied minors facing west, and the enhanced terrain graphics, but that's it. The game mechanics are more important than eye-candy.

I'd prefer to see the SC2 map look more like A3R rather than Clash of Steel. But once I get into playing, it really doesn't matter. I'm thinking grand strategy in my head anyway. And each turn is just another iteration of the observe-orient-decide-act loop.

[J P Wagner]

Well in the end, it comes down to personal preference with no one being right or wrong. I use the unit and graphic mods for the simple reason that I like them....no deep analysis needed here...

[ January 14, 2003, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: J P Wagner ]

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

Originally posted by Hudson:

However I do not want it as ugly as Russo German War.

TSR/SPI's game Drive on Stalingrad was a particularly UGLY game. The map was icky and the counters were nasty. I had a lot of TSR/SPI games and they were either good looking or ugly, no real in between.

For my SC I like the flat icon mod, makes them look more like little cardboard playing pieces.

Prep Fire Phase anyone?

[JerseyJohn]

SeaWolf_48

A Great Summary and I agree 100% -- a terrific recap of points made in a dozen or so past forums!

"I don't mind the look of the game at all. However I do mind that the proportions of the map, they are so off. I think that they should take more care making the European map to scale! Mountains have only one scale, the mountains in Turkey and the Alps are the same? The rivers and forest are just placed by someones memory, not according to geographics. Islands are missing, Corsica, Iceland, Greenland, Cos, etc. There are no beaches, you can invade any hex. The Murmansk Convoy route is missing, North Africa needs two more hexes, well, the map has real problems, not with the look, but with it's proportions! The game is great, but I think it could have a better map! "

As for it's physical appearance I agree with Bill's comment, once you start playing it doesn't matter much.

Recently I've downloaded the Elite Mod and, contrary to the popular view, like the stark contrast in the map. It might be an eyesight anomaly. I also like the unit representations, favor military symbols over images. I've got a problem determing the stregnth level of the minor piece units; the number blends in too much with the unit coloring and I have trouble picking it out. So in the long run I may either go back to Hubert's original icons or download the other image set, which looks good too except it isn't military symbols -- can't have everything. One nice thing about the map is placing the cursor over rivers or mountains in editor mode and seeing it's name at the top of the page.

As for the visual aspect of Hubert's original map and pieces. I like the idea that it looks 70s as I get nostalgic and feel 20s again.

[ January 14, 2003, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[bhdhtx]

Kuniworth

Do you happen to know how I can get that game! Looks awesome, Raead the reviews and would love to get a chance to play it! I would appreciate any help with this.

Bill

[Logan Hartke]

I love the look of the game. I also agree 110% with everything that SeaWolf_48 said, but I have a few more comments to add to his, although those are best saved for another day. Although I'm only 16, I'm still a Panzer Leader junkie (although a late-comer compared to many on the forum who used to play it). I love the look of the map. I changed many of my icons, but the map is the same, because I like it that way. I don't want any more detail or any "3D" effects. I do have some bone to pick about road networks and rivers, however.

Logan Hartke

[Liam]

I love Civilization IIIs graphics. They're very lively. The map's, cities are of great detail. It's an Empire building game not a Wargame but still... Whoa, try playing a full game, <you can't play Mult-player it's impossible>...but even with a pent 1.9 I can't play a AI with 16 players... it takes it sometimes 5 or 6 minutes to recycle through the turns. I'll sacrifice graphics for speed. Althought ummm, you could definitely make SC European Map a hell of a lot more detailed and exact. For instance where is the black forest? The Ardenne is the there, but no Black forest?

[Yogi]

To a "real wargamer" the look of the game is not important. I would even say that a game that looks like an old boardgame is more likely to be a better strategic exercise than the trendy games with emphasis placed on graphics and/or sound. As I mentioned in a different string, I would love nothing more than to see some of the old boardgames faithfully recreated for computer. When someone actually builds a "better mousetrap" let me know, because I have yet to see one. I enjoy games such as Civilization, Total War etc, but comparing them to a wargame is the old apples and oranges saying.

Your question actually hits the heart of the matter. Does it bother me that SC looks like an old boardgame - No. What bothers me is that perhaps the answer for the majority of the game buyers of today would be - Yes.

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Hmm I might be stealing this thread to use as a club on another forum if I get a few more posts like the one before this one heheh.

Some of you people are in the opinions of others elsewhere "non existent".

[Liam]

Hey wait a minute, It's a Wargame yeah and BattleFront is obviously capable of doing lovely work look at the Demo's for CMBB. If you have a Pent.75 still it's your fault. They can add detail and will if people show interest and spend money!

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Detail in and of itself doesn't make a wargame.

Detail might be possible, and certainly isn't a negative, but to put detail in, with the assumption that the detail will sell the game, and not what the game is supposed to be, is actually a bad idea in and of itself.

I tend to buy a book for what's between the covers, not for what's ON the cover.

I did not buy into playing SC for how it looked, but for how it played.

I have also never bought a game, simply because it "looked good".

I have some good looking games, but I have just as many plain looking ones.

[JimR]

I like the old-fashioned boardgame look. At the same time I think the map (in SC2?) could do a better job of portraying features to scale.

[jmbunnelle]

The map doesn't bother me. Its scale doesn't lend itself to great detail, although I would like to be able to create a map that was not comprised of identical hexes, one where national ownership does not color the hexes owned but rather a constantly shifting border along the hex edges, like the technique utilized in The Operational Art of War, with the border color reflecting ownership, i.e. for the East front, a two-tone hex boundary with one side gray, one side red.

I'm split on the eye candy issue. They don't salvage a sh***y game but they make a great one that much more enjoyable. I don't think it should be overlooked, especially if you're trying to expand your consumer base. Besides, "great" graphics does not equate to 3D. A lot can be achieved simply painting bitmaps with a nice color palette.

[ February 06, 2003, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: jmbunnelle ]

[RommelDAK]

I agree strongly with those saying the map doesn't bother them in the least. I, too, am an old board wargamer, and I prefer playability to eye candy (though some of those SPI maps in the mid 1970s got VERY boring! ).

However, I have found it a bit difficult to get some of my computer-gaming buddies interested because there aren't any pretty 3d graphics. I wouldn't want to change the game just for them, but I'm a bit disappointed that I'm having a tough time converting these folks who grew up with Half-Life, Civilization, etc.

[Shaka of Carthage]

RommelDAK

There is a big difference between how the "boardgamer" type approachs a wargame, as opposed to the "computer" type who've grown up only with computer games.

Us old boardgamer types are more forgiving if we have a playable game (determined by reading the rules first). And then we usually have a tendency to want to "tinker" with it... guess that comes from once we've "learned" (multiple readings and quite a few games) the rules, having to deal with the addedums and corrections that inevitably followed.

New generation who have only seen the computer games, base thier impressions on what the game looks like (eye candy). If it doesn't pass that test, they usually won't play it anymore. They generally couldn't care less, since they figure if this one doesn't do it, there is one out there that will.

And alot of them consider "turn based" some sort of extinct thing old people did.

Whats going happen when all of us old grognards die out?

[RommelDAK]

Quite right. I know I shouldn't force my preferences on others, but it seems a shame to me that there is a generation more concerned with pixels than playability.

That said, I did get a couple of them to buy the game! I'm in the middle of my first PBEM right now!