Laox Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Ok perhaps this picture, of the new C&C game, will give the doubters an idea of what CMBB could be like with a bigger budget graphics engine. One can only dream. Why are the megabucks being spent on development for kids, who have no money unless we give it them? I say, boycott your kids pocket money and put it in a fund for paying battlefront to license the C&C graphics engine, or something like it. Thats the only solution. [ January 11, 2003, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Laox ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Engel Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 That looks very toy-like, as if everything is made of plastic. Essentially, that's just skin, the hard parts of the graphics are elsewhere (3d wireframe models and their animation, polycount, rendering, etc.). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straif Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 I know "de gustibus non est disputandum", but I, personally, would never buy CMBB if it looks like this. I expected a WWII SIMULATOR, not another eye-candy fantasy game in Lego-land. Graphics in CMBB looks good enough for me; I don't think that it is a first-rate feature in a simulator. best Straif 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 I would play CMBB with units that looked like old board games if they would spend that kind of money on the AI. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salkin Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 I prefer the realistic look of CMBB. If they improve the look, I want them to go in the direction they are going now. //Salkin Swede who don't like toy tanks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Poisz Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Minimum: Windows 98/ME/2000/XP DirectX 8.1 Intel Pentium 1000 MHZ 128 MB RAM 1.2 GB Hard Disk Space 4X CD-ROM 64 MB Graphic card Recommended: Windows 98/ME/2000/XP DirectX 8.1 Intel Pentuim 2000 MHZ >256 MB Ram 1.4 GB Hard Disk Space 8X CD-ROM 64 MB Graphic card These are the system specs for that new c&c game. Horror ! And while it's a matter of taste I still think those c&c graphics look crap compared to CMBB's. I really don't understand why lots of people like those flashy-mega-cooldude-overbright-plasmacolorish graphics, I just like the "cartoonish" (in the positive way) CMBB approach more, just a matter of taste. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Murray Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Maybe it's predjudice but I just don't care for the vehicle graphics in that C&C game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laox Posted January 11, 2003 Author Share Posted January 11, 2003 oh you old grizzled bunch of ludites, with your 'works just fine' acoustic coupled modems ... forget the tank and explosion graphics, I'm talking about the proper shadowing and lighting and detailed models for buildings, ground and so on. Yes it looks like table top model, because thats one step UP from looking like slab sided no-lighting circa 1998 polygons, as CMBB does. Anyway, I imagine in motion it stops looking like a static model. Trees waving and moving shadows, lighting, etc, tend to do bring models to life. Of course I'd like money to be spent on AI, but player vs player that becomes less of a priority, and fighting in around villages that look like the above picture are so much more immersive than what we have now. And immersion is the mother of tension and you can't have too much tension, grogs are just afraid to say so out loud, yet secretly i bet they greet any graphic new toys with glee. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ichadwick Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Originally posted by Laox: I'm talking about the proper shadowing and lighting and detailed models for buildings, ground and so on.I also play Ghost Recon and its models are far better, but that's not why I play it. Personally I don't like the lighting in the C&C pic. Too bright, like an overhead spotlight. The models look - well it's been said before: like plastic. Buildings look okay, though. I agree: I'd rather see the effort put into an improved AI, a tighter and more accurate OOB and then improved graphics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekander Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 I prefer CMBB.. I actually love it just the way it is! -Nekander 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horus Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 @Nekander same here. btw. i search one more pbem partner (scenarios). up for one ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 If he's not I am. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrullenhaft Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 These aren't true 3D worlds to my knowledge, which would pose a severe handicap to the way that CM is played currently. These games have a limited isometric perspective that can make drawing and lighting of graphics much simpler. I would be almost willing to wager that there probably isn't any LOS calculations going on for combat (or at least minimal rules) either. Can you build your own maps ? I'd suspect not (either that or they look like a bunch of cookie-cutter duplicates). Perhaps the Sudden Strike series would be what you could expect with such an engine. It would be a bad idea for BTS/BFC to license such an engine - not that they would ever want to anyway. They have to deal with the expense of licensing (which is more than significant) and pray that the engine's creator has accurate/timely support and a robust API. Then they would have to deal with the creative limitations that the engine places on them (or spend a horrendous amount of time modifying the engine...) and then finally deal with the realization that the engine will be considered 'dated' in 6 months. The primary reasons for licensing engines (and there are only so many available) is to supplement or replace your lack of expertise in the field and get to market quicker (which is a big issue for most publishers). Most publishers have a mindset that dictates game releases on a near fixed schedule (gotta keep the revenue comin' in) with the expectation that the product will have a limited shelf-life (less than a year) before another title needs to be released. Not all publishers operate this way, but a lot of them do. In most cases BTS/BFC doesn't operate this way. The amount of research BTS/BFC has to do (which extremely few developers engage in) necessitates long development times that wouldn't fit into the above business models of most developers. Many game developers just come up with a concept and define it's playability (which can be hard) as the extent of most of their 'research'. After that they concentrate on engine development and the creation of graphics artwork. Anyway, my point is that licensing a graphic engine from someone else would almost never fit into BTS/BFC's business model. On top of this, the engine rewrite will probably please a lot of people who are admiring the above screenshots. CM will probably always be behind the cutting edge of graphics (as game reviewers define them), but the engine rewrite will be a large jump in CM's appearance and functionality (though it won't be able to accomodate every feature that BTS/BFC and their customers want). Admittedly I'd love to see a lot of graphical improvements to CM. It would be wonderful to have a much 'denser' environment with a lot more variability and unique terrain. The graphical beauty of a game is very enticing. Unfortunately that's where a lot of developers concentrate a vast majority of their development time at the expense of game play, AI programming or other details and this is something that BTS/BFC can't do if they expect to maintain their core audience. [ January 11, 2003, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Schrullenhaft ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekander Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Originally posted by Horus: @Nekander btw. i search one more pbem partner (scenarios). up for one ?Hi there! Check your e-mail.. -Nekander 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekander Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Sorry, double post. [ January 11, 2003, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Nekander ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horus Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 nekander+Sgtgoody you have mail 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 I'd bet CM3 will look better than that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt Kernow Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 No way is that a real screen shot. That is a model. Someones having a laugh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardcampa Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Nah that could very well be a screenshot. What I'm wondering is whether the graphics is fake 3d (isometric view, in effect 2d) or real 3D. The graphics in those screenshots are UGLY though. Maddox Games is doing the graphics the right way in their upcoming title (well codemasters now): http://www.il2center.com/article.php?sid=98 Originally posted by Cpt Kernow: No way is that a real screen shot. That is a model. Someones having a laugh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laox Posted January 12, 2003 Author Share Posted January 12, 2003 Originally posted by Cpt Kernow: No way is that a real screen shot. That is a model. Someones having a laugh.No, it was shown at E3 quite a while ago. If anything the graphics have got better. Want to see some more? including night shots, and closer zooms .. some really spectacular stuff, although of course it is not trying to be realistic or anything to do with WWII, but IMO realtime shadows and realtime lighting and more detail, as options for faster pcs, is certainly a "about time" addition to the CM series. check these out.. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,5624959~root=pcgames~mode=flat 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makes The Jelly Judder Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 I don't think it's too hard to code something like the above now a days. The real killer is the time it takes. You might spend 2 days coding some smart arsed particle effect only to discover that it either looks pants (even though it took smart arsed programming to work) or it brings an average system to it's knee's. It was possible to create images as above using a voodoo2, the trade offs are it would take one programmer several years to code well (that’s if he wasn't colour blind, you can add another year if so). It would take 2 mins to update the scene. And the voodoo2 system would run out of texture memory as soon as two tanks appeared on screen at the same time. I'm certain that Charle's can code a graphics engine that is as good as if not better. Unforntuantly Charles also has to do the AI, interface, game engine, units, physics ect. Plus he might be colouring blind also so that might double the time it takes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardcampa Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Heh, to counter with how it should be (to take advantage of true 3D in a strategy sim): Example 1 Example 2 =) BUT, I think Battlefronts graphics engine is AWESOME. I mean you have to think: What is the point of the engine. What can it do to enhance the "gameplay". With that I think Battlefront should be given 5 stars as it is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Straif, I have always thought that the Dutch contributions are of markedly superior taste, don't you think? (Everyone else....never mind, you probably won't get it ) Hunter 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 don't forget animations. That's one of the most important components in my mind. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 don't forget animations. That's one of the most important components in my mind. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.