Graphics redesign, not an engine rewrite.

[Mercury]

This is a fantastic, absorbing game with quite magnificent gameplay.

The AI is pretty good, especially on defense but its beauty comes into its own when two humans battle it out(as with any great game I guess)

However, the graphics do let it down. Not for the hardened gamers or fans of CMBO and CMBB, we can deal with a little stilted movement from our soldiers but when joe public is so used to fantastically slick animation of their human characters in most games, CMBO/BB just don't cut the mustard.

To me it does not matter, to most wargamers out there it does not matter but this game deserves to take the gaming world by storm yet whenever I show this to many other gamers, they have a major problem getting past the strange looking characters moving into battle.

There are many out there who take one look and turn away because of this.

We live in a world where people expect to be hooked instantly and CMBO/BB doesn't quite make the grade where this is concerned for a large proportion of the population.

So forget the engine rewrite, that seems to produce the most gripping and tense contests, please get those graphics nailed down to perfection, we know it can be done!

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by Mercury:

So forget the engine rewrite, that seems to produce the most gripping and tense contests, please get those graphics nailed down to perfection, we know it can be done!

I object very strongly. I already have enough 'whiz-bang' games with fantastic graphics that I played for a week or two and never touched them after that.

For most wargamers, and CM was always targeted towards that group, the content is much more important than shiny gfx.

With the engine rewrite though I'm sure the graphical quality will make a big leap forward, but, I hope, and am quite sure about it, not at the price of less complexity/realism.

[_Axe_]

What ParaBellum said.

[Mercury]

I hear what you are saying BUT my point is that the graphics are not up to the standard of the gameplay.

Yes, content IS the main part of any game but just imagine how mind blowingly great this would be if the graphics were as spectacular...

The designers have clearly mastered the engine, but why do the graphics come in as a poor second? Certainly where animation of the men is concerned, the AFVs are fine.

Why argue against improving the look? Awesome GFX would not turn this classic into a two week mindless shoot em up. It would create THE GREATEST game with no arguement. At present there are many knockers out there because of the stilted animation that turns them off, a shallow argument but nonetheless true.

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by Mercury:

The designers have clearly mastered the engine, but why do the graphics come in as a poor second? Certainly where animation of the men is concerned, the AFVs are fine.

Why argue against improving the look?

The gfx are the way they are because when the CM engine was developed, the aim was that it should run on low-end computers as well as on medium range ones. Wargamers, that were the audience CM was built for, are far more reluctant to upgrade their machines every year than your typical FPS fan. Since CMBB still uses (basically) the same engine, what we see now is what could be done with the 'old' engine.

When CMII will appear, the average user's machine will be far more powerful than the machines CMBO was developed for, so I'm sure (and BFC stated that repeatedly already) that the gfx will be vastly improved.

Mercury, I'm not arguing against grafical improvements, hell I want to see CM with the best possible gfx myself. Just not at the cost of a cut-down in other, IMO more important areas.

Absolute spotting comes to my mind...

[ October 27, 2002, 09:08 AM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[deanco]

What Mercury said.

I never have understood this argument. Good graphics and realism don't have to be mutually exclusive. It's a question of budget, and time. Good graphics *will* pull in more gamers, which means more money to finance more projects. It's a win-win proposition, assuming the extra cost of putting the better graphics in is offset by greater sales.

Finally, if push comes to shove and BFC have to decide between putting a realism enhancing doohickey in or having tank track marks in the snow, does anyone honestly wonder which feature would be taken out?

[Alkiviadis]

While eye-candy isn't irrelavent by any means -

an upgraded graphics engine would allow one to truly read the terrain without a grid overlay -

the fact is this a four man operation writing software targetted toward a niche market (us!)

that has mid-to-low range hardware.

My own iron was cutting edge 4 mounths ago

and the only reason I was able to get it was I

built it using parts & components that "fell off

the truck".

Eye-candy would increase the immersion level of the game - important for it's enjoyment to be sure - but economic realities unfortunately must be factored in.

The art of life is the art of judicious compromise.

[mchlstrt]

Somebody referred to this already, but I'll bring it up again. Whenever any Graphics Issue comes up re: CM it's important to remember that there is a lot more actually going on in CM than in most games, so the 'Total Graphical Differential' is not as large as it first seems. Also, BXX aims at the average actual installed computer base, as opposed to 'Pushing the Envelope', & I have to agree w/ this, considering how many 'CM is Overworking my System' Threads there are as it is. This is not to say they couldn't squeeze out more HP, or that I might make different compromises, or that we shouldn't discuss it. When the generally intelligent & thoughtful people on this Board take up an issue, within whatever 'Real Life' constraints apply, Very Good Ideas often come out of it. Not that I actually have any.

strt

[OddjobXL]

I think when we talk about economic compromise and the future success of Battlefront the compromises should be made by the fanbase and not the company. Most games published now are for higher range machines. And to put the grognardier than thou debate to rest there are plenty of folks who, to my mind utterly deludedly, already call Combat Mission eyecandy for the masses and won't give up their hexmaps till you pry them from their cold, dead, hands. Those guys already think CM is too demanding of hardware.

The fact is that if Battlefront wants to make more money it has to try to come up to the graphical standards of the market. In another thread I've suggested a couple other tricks to make a future product utterly irresistable: linked randomized Quick Battles with logistics routines, personnel/organizational management, and special conditions and events for the strategic engine and generated tactical battles and, possibly (god this would make everything complete), the tracking of individual soldiers ala CC.

We already have the example of Medieval: Total War. We know from designers comments that each individual man in a unit is tracked for a variety of persistant stats (even if that information isn't available in the interface). We also have extremely good graphics. We have a strategic game as well (if not the sort that would work realistically for Combat Mission). And this game has just been named the best game of all time by PC Gamer. I know, it's a bit like the Velvet Underground being named the best band of all time by Teen Beat but, hey, beating out Half-Life and Civilization in a popularity contest is no mean feat.

I'm not at all interested in comproming the modability and realism in CM either. That's what the game is all about. However to get more folks involved standards have to come up. I don't want to play GI Combat or some Panzer Claws RTS. CM brings the feel of combat to life in a way these likely cheesy games won't. However it should have as much graphical fidelity as it does historical fidelity.

Bring everyone together.

[Alkiviadis]

I don't think this is about grognard vs. non-grognard - I am a grog, been playing wargames excusively since "Tactics II", that's the early 60s pup.

This is a large portion of the fanbase, and

economics is an area where we don't compromise.

Presumably, BFC has done the marketing studies to back up their targetting re: game engine's performance/resource requirments etc.

There are two attractions to "manual games":

1. The "game engine" is moddable. In other words,

I see how the engine works: rules, charts ,tables, hexs, etc.

A manual wargame is "manual" software, as such, one can MOD it to greater complexity, etc., limited only by one's imagination/knowledge.

2. The entire map is viewable, instantly, from any angle/distance.

[flamingknives]

Get down in the dirt and have a look at your men.

They're on a par with the FPS of a few years back, and there's 10 to a platoon. Consider that you can have a battalion on map, and there's over 100 men represented, before support elements, on both sides.

I'll admit though, that the 'sneak/crawl' animation needs work - it looks as if they're having a tantrum across the field

Besides, I'm rarely down low enough to see all the prettyness

[Alkiviadis]

Sorry pal,

I'm always down in the dirt with my grunts.

I don't have any problem suspending my disbelief, and I also play lots of:

America's Army

Op Flashpoint

Ghost Recon

Warbirds 3

IL2

Rowen's Battle of Britain

PanzerElite

various HPS games

various "manual" wargames

- all at max realism/graphics/rules implementation.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Mercury:

This is a fantastic, absorbing game with quite magnificent gameplay.

The AI is pretty good, especially on defense but its beauty comes into its own when two humans battle it out(as with any great game I guess)

However, the graphics do let it down. Not for the hardened gamers or fans of CMBO and CMBB, we can deal with a little stilted movement from our soldiers but when joe public is so used to fantastically slick animation of their human characters in most games, CMBO/BB just don't cut the mustard.

To me it does not matter, to most wargamers out there it does not matter but this game deserves to take the gaming world by storm yet whenever I show this to many other gamers, they have a major problem getting past the strange looking characters moving into battle.

There are many out there who take one look and turn away because of this.

We live in a world where people expect to be hooked instantly and CMBO/BB doesn't quite make the grade where this is concerned for a large proportion of the ("gaming") population.

!

I completely agree with this point:

" whenever I show this to many other gamers, they have a major problem getting past the strange looking characters moving into battle.

There are many out there who take one look and turn away because of this.

We live in a world where people expect to be hooked instantly and CMBO/BB doesn't quite make the grade where this is concerned for a large proportion of the population."

I think it is a very relevant point.... BUT maybe BFC/BTS doesn't care about those folks. They are a HUGE market but they are NOT wargamers, most of us here would agree this is a WWII simulation MADE by wargamers FOR wargamers and REAL wargamers it has been suggested DON'T need graphics like OFP.

I consider myself a wargamer, BUT I would still like to see MUCH more polised and professional graphics like IL2 or OPF in the re-write when it comes out 2.5- 3 years from now. I would like to see better graphics mostly so when I show this GREAT game to people they won't say "Yeah but the graphics don't look like OFP or IL2 and they are about 2-3 years behind the times in video gaming! "

IMHO

-tom w

[ October 27, 2002, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Alkiviadis]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mercury:

This is a fantastic, absorbing game with quite magnificent gameplay.

The AI is pretty good, especially on defense but its beauty comes into its own when two humans battle it out(as with any great game I guess)

However, the graphics do let it down. Not for the hardened gamers or fans of CMBO and CMBB, we can deal with a little stilted movement from our soldiers but when joe public is so used to fantastically slick animation of their human characters in most games, CMBO/BB just don't cut the mustard.

To me it does not matter, to most wargamers out there it does not matter but this game deserves to take the gaming world by storm yet whenever I show this to many other gamers, they have a major problem getting past the strange looking characters moving into battle.

There are many out there who take one look and turn away because of this.

We live in a world where people expect to be hooked instantly and CMBO/BB doesn't quite make the grade where this is concerned for a large proportion of the ("gaming") population.

!

I completely agree with this point:

" whenever I show this to many other gamers, they have a major problem getting past the strange looking characters moving into battle.

There are many out there who take one look and turn away because of this.

We live in a world where people expect to be hooked instantly and CMBO/BB doesn't quite make the grade where this is concerned for a large proportion of the population."

I think it is a very relevant point.... BUT maybe BFC/BTS doesn't care about those folks. They are a HUGE market but they are NOT wargamers, most of us here would agree this is a WWII simulation MADE by wargamers FOR wargamers and REAL wargamers it has been suggested DON'T need graphics like OFP.

I consider myself a wargamer, BUT I would still like to see MUCH more polised and professional graphics like IL2 or OPF in the re-write when it comes out 2.5- 3 years from now. I would like to see better graphics mostly so when I show this GREAT game to people they won't say "Yeah but the graphics don't look like OFP or IL2 and they are about 2-3 years behind the times in video gaming! "

IMHO

-tom w</font>

[gunnergoz]

My vote is for the engine re-write, first and foremost. As long as the BFC folks are happy and the income flow is sufficient for their purposes, I could care less if the player base won't grow further just because some unenlightened folks can't get past the graphics (which are fine by me, but then, like Stalin's Organ, I was playing Nieuchess and Tactics II some 40 years ago and BOY have we come a long way since then... )

[deanco]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

...I could care less if the player base won't grow further just because some unenlightened folks can't get past the graphics...

Yeah, see, that's the difference between us. I'm an evangelist. I want everybody to play CM, because CM, IMHO, is first and foremost a great computer game. And I want to share this great game I found. Once they get past the graphics, I'm sure the underlying mechanics, WEGO, etc will suck them in and they'll be fans too.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by deanco:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gunnergoz:

...I could care less if the player base won't grow further just because some unenlightened folks can't get past the graphics...

Yeah, see, that's the difference between us. I'm an evangelist. I want everybody to play CM, because CM, IMHO, is first and foremost a great computer game. And I want to share this great game I found. Once they get past the graphics, I'm sure the underlying mechanics, WEGO, etc will suck them in and they'll be fans too.</font>

[Mercury]

Some interesting points gentlemen!

Although I knew the Battlefront team was small I did not realise it is just four of them! Very brave men indeed.

I take my hat off to them for creating the first computer game I have never grown bored with.

But those crawling soldiers make me cringe!

I'd also love to see a few one off, unique buildings to dot around like a ruined castle, medieval town walls(there are so many walled towns in Europe that were fought over in WW2) and even a tower with Rapunzel in!

And I guess I must be an evangelist too....I want to spread the word. And the word is good!

[Compassion]

Originally posted by Mercury:

However, the graphics do let it down. Not for the hardened gamers or fans of CMBO and CMBB, we can deal with a little stilted movement from our soldiers but when joe public is so used to fantastically slick animation of their human characters in most games, CMBO/BB just don't cut the mustard.

Problem is that the calculations that make the sharp animaitons across tens of thousands of sqare meters of game field are used to calculate hits so that has to stay so you can't do things like FPS games where you dump down the complexity of animaitons for anything more than a few feet away and use area hit tables to calculate 'hits' from shots in the general direaction of the target.

This means that the while the graphics of CM don't look as fancy as some games it's actually pushing as many triangles as anything alse and keeping accuracy and exactness up. It's going to be hard to push graphics up to the level of UT2003 and also keep the level of accuracy and keep the game playable on most computers (I've already run into that problem... in the midst of restarting a QB with an someone who can't watch movies in a urban battle with heavy damage.

THere are some good posts by Steve explaining this clearer than I can from 2001 but I coudln't find them in a quick search. Perhaps he'll explain it anew for a new bunch of players since CMBB came out.

[Humus B. Chittenbee]

i think you are all missing the boat here ---

1] this four man team of war mongers is composed of americans.

2] the american economy is in the toilet.

from this we can postulate a scenario wherein the patriotic bf.c creates a[n even more wonderful] game which [because of spectactular graphics, relative spotting, etc] requires most cmbo, cmbb, & noobie players to upgrade their computers [or not play the new-engine game] - thus driving the economy out of the doldrums. hell, it is an idea that appears at least as good as whatever the fed has been doing for the past year. i say we give them federal funding to develop the new engine!

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Humus B. Chittenbee:

1] this four man team of war mongers is composed of americans.

Three Americans, one Australian, and one German.

I refrain from comment on the remainder of your post out of politeness.

Michael

[kmead]

I fail to understand where this whole thread is going. The engine rewrite as I have understood it for the last year or more has always been intended to make the graphics much better. The graphics are part and parcel with the AI, battle resolution and all the other shenanigans that go on in this game. Steve and Dan have repeatedly spoken about improving the graphics and how they are added to the game process.

BTS clearly understands that graphics are the way to draw in more buyers, but as was stated by several, the current engine was developed to run on the average machine that exists right now. In case you haven't noticed, the computer industry is in a major slump. The average home user is not running out to buy a hot new computer, most applications do not require a hot computer. There is no killer application driving the continuous upgrade cycle. The internet, word processing and minor number crunching are adequately served by the majority of machines out there right now.

With the tanking US economy in particular, consumers are buying up cheap consoles for most of their gaming desires. Most people don't want to chase the latest video drivers etc etc. that a high end game requires to run correctly. We here will happily maintain our machines in order to have the heavy crunching ability a console lacks, but we are slowly falling into the minority. Have you noticed how much less floor space at a Best Buy or Circuit City or other electronics retailer is now given over to games for computers versus games for consoles? Clearly CMXX will not be running on a console for the forseeable future, but the trend for general entertianment is established and gaining ground.

Back to the original point, I am sure the next game engine will enable much better graphics. The computers available in 3 years will be remarkable in their capabilities. The current RTS will likely be like going to a movie or nearly so. Will CMXX be that good? No but it will model much larger landmasses and features all at once to a greater degree than we enjoy today. I think the resolution of the land will be among the greatest improvements of the new engine from a graphic standpoint. Imagine a much smaller "tile" that we can discern the cover in it (ie lowspots and so on) and the units will actually utilize the terrain feature. Think about the transistions from one type of vegetation to the next, or ditches or small streams versus rivers. Add in all the new game mechanics features and I am sure we will be mightily impressed.

Ultimately this game will likely not ever appeal to the unwashed masses. To get good at this game takes alot of time, effort, concentration and a peculiar form of knowledge. Face it there are only so many people on the planet willing to put in the amount of effort needed to even play this game. How many people play chess? Chess has 6 different units. Most of them have very restricted movements and attacks. Most people find it takes too much effort to play. This game is the same only multiplied by 300 different tanks, I don't know how many infantry units and an infinite variety of playing fields. Is it any wonder that we are a rare breed?

Sorry for the ramble, its time for dinner. Bye

[deanco]

"Another thing is that I think it would be a bad mistake to try to go after a much larger audience than CM already has. To do so would mean ever greater compromises to try to please that audience..."

You say that like it's a given, yet you failed to show the casual correlation between the two. Perhaps it's self evident, in which case consider me stupid.

"But we need to understand and accept that this always will be a small market and not try to seduce a larger crowd that has no commitment to our particular values."

So you're saying the number of people that could possibly be interested in playing a realistic WW2 strategy game is, by definition, finite? Sorry, but once again, I just don't get it.

[Mud]

I have no craving for additional pure eye-candy, but that doesn't mean that I'd oppose graphical / interface improvements that provide additional functionality. It may even be possible to justify some unrealistic playing aids such as the ability to toggle a grid or elevation lines, given that the player is also unrealistically hampered by engine limitations (Example: the player plays not only a high-level Bn- or Co- level commander, but also everybody down to squad-level because he can't delegate... and it would be rather much to expect, given the AI and interface nastiness that would result. You can't expect a natural language parser, for instance. This means that the player essentially needs to remember every detail that his soldiers need to, because they won't do it for him.)

I wouldn't mind, for instance, seeing unit ID labels (e.g. "T-34?") on a high-level map, to save the need for clicking them individually. It would be very useful to be able to select a friendly unit, and get a display showing what it can see (e.g. a 360-arc shading parts of the map depending on quality of LOS) rather than sweeping w/ the LOS tool; being able to select multiple units and see what they can see would be even spiffier (check for blind spots). Inverse LOS (which of my units can see this location and how well) would also be nice...

Additional play aids could summarize knowledge that a soldier might have, but the player (who may not have any military experience whatsoever) might not. For instance, an experienced artilleryman might be able to tell me the likely area that a given fire mission would cover -- however, the game won't tell me the spread, so as a non-soldier I might have an unjustified difficulty in knowing how much of a safety margin there needs to be. A MG might be able to tell me whether fire at a given range is likely to suppress, or to actually incapacitate, instead of harder-to-interpret FP numbers (something like this is already done for AT fire -- hit/kill probs.). A squad might be able to tell me "I can bellycrawl there, sure, but it'll probably take 10 minutes and I'll be exhausted." And so forth...

[vondeath]

Speaking of graphics ... Maybe someone can tell me what I did wrong.

My old box(800 cel, 128MB RAM, Intel 810 "vid") was running CMBB at a snail's pace on the larger screens but with stunning graphics compared to CMBO. My new box(1.7 cel, 256MB DDR RAM, Savage S3 "vid") runs CMBB fantastically, but other than the vehicles, buildings and the soldiers, the graphics quality has gone to hell... terrain, trees and sky up close have the "squared pixel" look. At every resolution setting. Any ideas?.

BTW, my old box had WinMe and the new one has 98SE.

I figured I'd post here before starting a new thread.

[ October 27, 2002, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: vondeath ]