Graphics redesign, not an engine rewrite.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by 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.

I would be reluctant to call you stupid, deanco.

The conclusion is self-evident to me based on many years of observing movements of all types and their dynamics and developments. For a movement to maintain its impetus, it has to stay focussed on its core values and goals. Simply trying to bring everybody to the party, regardless of how well or poorly they understand and embrace those values inevitably has the consequence of diluting them, often fatally. I think if we concentrate on keeping CM true to itself, those who "belong" to it will find it. Look at the way new gamers are flocking to it already.

"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.

You betcha I'm saying it's finite. Not only that, compared to the set of the entire population, it is microscopic. Even within the set of computer gamers it is small. There has been in the last few years a renewed flurry of interest in WW II, due mainly to such movies as SPR and BOB. While some of the people who have been caught up in that trend will develop a lasting interest, most will develop other more dominant interests that will usurp their time. That's just natural. Those who are interested enough in WW II to read the stack of books necessary to really appreciate CM will be, if not exactly one in a million, one in ten thousand.

And the bottom line is, that's enough to justify CM as long as it remains true to itself. It isn't at all necessary for CM—or anything else for that matter—to be the most popular game in the history of computer gaming. All that is necessary is that it do what it set out to do. Which is to be the best tactical wargame set in WW II Europe presently available.

Michael

[LuckyStrike]

Its all very well to ask for 'better graphics', but don't forget that the engine has to work well on maps of up to 9 square kilometers! Show me a FPS that can do that. I find that in CMBB even a moderate size map with 4x antialiasing and many objects can drop the frame rate on my 4600Ti card down even more than say, IL-2, which is very graphicaly demanding. I would say don't underestimate how much is going on to bring the display to the quality it is even now.

[Sgt. Steiner]

Offhand, I'd say that S3 vidcard is the culprit. GF2's and GF3's are very reasonable now, and do an outstanding job of rendering the game. Radeons do OK too. If a new one is still too much on the old wallet, those cards can be had on E-bay for nearly nothing..

[OddjobXL]

I'm with Deanco. I don't see a division between a game being "true to itself" and "best tactical wargame set in WW II Europe" while also improving graphics to a competative level. Flight simulators are some of the most exacting, realistic, game designs out there but one can't say graphics aren't important to them.

I'd also like to see quick-battles with the same core forces linked ala Steel Panthers or Across The Rhine. How hard, really, would that be to do? How would that keep Combat Mission from being "true to itself" or "best tactical wargame set in WW II Europe"?

I think there's a camel's nose argument here that really doesn't make a whole lot of sense and, contrary to a previous poster, I do detect there's more than a little 'I wuz grog before you wuz grog' elitism at work.

[ October 27, 2002, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: OddjobXL ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by kmead:

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.

Thats not entirely true on the MAC side.

MAC OSX is the killer app and after this Jan 1 2003 new Macs won't boot into OS 9 anymore.

That means any new Mac sold after Jan 1 2003 won't play CMBO, CMBB or run Quark Xpress and to Designers that is a BIG one. (ok Maybe Qurak running in Classic under OSX but that is emmulation and it sucks, we now know CMBO/CMBB won't run in classic under OSX due to the RAVE API issue!)

I would agree with your point on the PC side (I guess) but for the Mac users MAC OSX takes full advantage of Mulitple processers and if yo are running Dual processors as Most new macs now are you REALLY want OSX to take full advantage of the extra speed.

The Next big thing from these guys is slated to run on OSX, they say it will, and I think it will take AT LEAST 2.5 years to GET IT RIGHT and I know they won't release it until they do get it right.

-tom w

[ October 27, 2002, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[deanco]

Yeah, Michael, but you didn't show how 'desire to expand public' and 'dilution of product' are inevitably linked. I don't see how the level of personal integrity, one man's vision of how things should be, the Battlefront Manifesto, is tied to making your game more accessible. The two things seem different, like apples and oranges.

Lemme use an example. The implementation of the color bars that show armor thickness in the CMBB interface. This feature, I think you'll agree, is aimed at the person who might not know off the top of his head the armor thickness of such and such a tank. Its goal is to make the game more accessible to those who haven't read the stack of books necessary to really appreciate CM.

How does the implementation of that feature adversely affect the personal integrity of the game?

[kmead]

aka_tom_w

wrote:

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

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.

Thats not entirely true on the MAC side.

MAC OSX is the killer app and after this Jan 1 2003 new Macs won't boot into OS 9 anymore.

That means any new Mac sold after Jan 1 2003 won't play CMBO, CMBB or run Quark Xpress and to Designers that is a BIG one. (ok Maybe Qurak running in Classic under OSX but that is emmulation and it sucks, we now know CMBO/CMBB won't run in classic under OSX due to the RAVE API issue!)

I would agree with your point on the PC side (I guess) but for the Mac users MAC OSX takes full advantage of Mulitple processers and if yo are running Dual processors as Most new macs now are you REALLY want OSX to take full advantage of the extra speed.

The Next big thing from these guys is slated to run on OSX, they say it will, and I think it will take AT LEAST 2.5 years to GET IT RIGHT and I know they won't release it until they do get it right.

-tom w

</font>

[manchildstein (ii)]

i would go the opposite direction... offer a 2-d interface OPTION with just the unit symbols and no movies but instead a GO! button which pumps out the results of the turn onto the 2d display...

[Michael Dorosh]

This whole conversation seems eminently ridiculous.

If BTS had the wherewithal to make CMBB look like the screenshots from the proposed WW II RTS (see below), don't you think they would?

Actually, Steve already stated that with the engine rewrite, CM II will "probably" look like this, in 2 years time, and WW II RTS is a year or so away from completion last I saw it discussed.

So what's the point of this whole conversation, again?

If it was possible for CM to look like this right now and run on average computers and not have taken six years to program, you don't think they would have?

The attention to detail in the current 3D models kind of tells me they would.

Sorry, what was the point again?

[vondeath]

double post ... ugh

[ October 28, 2002, 04:08 AM: Message edited by: vondeath ]

[vondeath]

Thanks for the info, Sgt Steiner.....

I thought it might tbe the "card" too, but my old "card" was the infamous Intel 810 and it looked fine. The vehicle, building and human images look fine....That's why I was wondering if there was some kind of tweak ...

[Ellros]

Originally posted by vondeath:

Thanks for the info.....

I thought it might tbe the "card" too, but my old "card" was the infamous Intel 810 and it looked fine ....

That 256mb of memory also helps, compared to the 128mb.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by OddjobXL:

I'm with Deanco. I don't see a division between a game being "true to itself" and "best tactical wargame set in WW II Europe" while also improving graphics to a competative level.

[snip]

I think there's a camel's nose argument here that really doesn't make a whole lot of sense and, contrary to a previous poster, I do detect there's more than a little 'I wuz grog before you wuz grog' elitism at work.

I think you are all being unnecessarily combative about this. I am not opposed to improving graphics in CM. In fact, I clearly made the point in my first post that it is something I too find desireable. Some of you seem determined to turn me into a straw man just so you can indulge in the sadistic pleasure of whipping up on anyone who disagrees with you.

The point I was making is that graphics should not take first priority over everything else in a mad pursuit to get "everybody" to play CM.

Are you clear on that now? How many times in how many ways do I have to repeat that before you finally get the message?

Michael

[deanco]

"The point I was making is that graphics should not take first priority over everything else in a mad pursuit to get "everybody" to play CM."

Well, no, that's not the only point you made, Michael. You asserted in your first post...

-------------

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...

-------------

...without really showing the correlation between 'larger audience' and 'greater compromises'. When pressed, you responded...

-------------

The conclusion is self-evident to me based on many years of observing movements of all types and their dynamics and developments. For a movement to maintain its impetus, it has to stay focussed on its core values and goals.

-------------

...which certainly sounds good, I mean you have a lot of big words in there, but you haven't really proved your point, nor did you address the specific issue of why putting better graphics or whatever in CMXX would compromise the integrity of the Battlefront Manifesto and forcibly make the game less realistic.

But whatever, I don't want you to feel like I'm picking on you. Let's drop the subject.

[Mark Gallear]

I personally think the graphics are top notch. (Ok I can grumble about anything - they should have put on two side graphics for Russian tanks for the slogans - that was a silly mistake -Battlefront, (yep I know it would have gone from 1gn to 2gb and I would never have got on my harddisk - the water is not as murky and glossy as water tends to be in rivers in real life - the marshes are ok but they just don't hit the spot.

Please remember that after all the pro modders have been at it a while it will look a whole lot better. My copy of CMBO now only chugs along - to mod heavy and does not look that much better than CM2.

I spelled checked this time

[kmead]

As so often happens we find ourselves in heated agreement.

We all want better graphics, it would help with the immersion, it would help with the gameplay if it included better terrain as well as rotoscoped/kinematic quality of motion for the soldiers. And so on ad infinitum.

As Michael said, if they could have included better grachics when they started this game's initial production they would have. As it is, the graphics are incredible in comparison to where they first started showing them back in 1999. Look through some of the old files about development and you will see what I mean.

I bought the game in July or August of 1999 on the basis of those graphics and reading the forum with Steve's posts. At the time I never chose to post as I am no grog and felt I couldn't add to the discussions. The beta demo vindicated that choice as they had done all that they said they would. This game more than anything else is about the game play, and even in the beta it was immersive, believeable and enjoyable.

To go back to earlier points and there were some good ones from Deanco, Mud and others. I love the idea of an expert system to advise the commander of what the results will be for a given order. It would be rather like the sargeant "guiding" the green leutenant to do the right thing. Being able to toggle him off as you learned the intricacies of command would be nice. As I recall in the game Patton vs Rommel there was a simple version of this feature.

I do feel the need to point out again that a very complex game that relies on tacit knowledge will always have a limited distribution. People are lazy when it comes time for entertainment, what else would explain the p[olularity of Sunday and Monday Night Football's popularity?

So lets lay off parsing out each item of each post. When we type these notes out initially, we all are responding with what we know or feel about the subject. We are not always thinking about the total logic involved or that someone will be analyzing what we said to such a degree. The internet tries to be a conversation except it is I-go, You-go. In normal conversation we tend to pick on a few points stated not each and every sentence.

Well off to work, have a nice day.

[Cpt Kernow]

I have made this a string on its own (This game aint just for Grog snobs) but it also belongs here. Reply to it in the above string.

Just seen a sentence in a prior post that really pissed me off.

It was this.

"Those who are interested enough in WW II to read the stack of books necessary to really appreciate CM "

WHAT!

The CM series is a truely fantastic series but unfortunately it seems to attract a certain type I will now coin the grog snob.

I would never had considered myself a wargamer before now.Though admitedly in the past I did belong to wargaming club and even owned metal figures but on my PC's hard drive have been FPS and RTS games. CM is the first actual "wargame" I have put on my machines hard drive. I did have a bent towards buying strategy games ( Shogun etc etc )but also realy enjoyed FPS. Now such games will never find a place on my HD as all my gaming time is devoted to CM. I cant think of a greater compliment to a game than keeping it on my HD even after I have bought the sequal (BO-BB).

Also I think some grogs fundamentally mis understand the potential mass appeal of the CM series, and seem to have some kind of hysterical desire to keep its audience limited to those that have read the required number of books.

Let us look at one of the Biggest selling games on the PC. The CIV series.

Any similarities between CIV and CM seem obvious to you mr grog snob.

1. Turn based

2. Graphics not near FPS or RTS standards.

So a game that contains the above features is demonstrably not barred from mass appeal and mass sales.

What is CIV famous for, fans of this series would say its depth. Now we know that in real terms CIV is a puddle compared to the oceanic depths of CM. But still here we are getting to the nub of why the CM series could be massive.

The reason why I can ( and many like me )enjoy CM ( Without having read any WW2 books,)is because unlike every other game i have put on my HD CM does not patronize my inteligence(unlike some grog snobs) but treats me like a mature thinking human being.

The average age of the installed PC base is much higher than that of the console base, and this is why CIV has sold so well on the PC. I see no reason why CM would not appeal to a larger proprotion of this mature gaming audience who as we have demonstrated do not base game purchases on graphics or turn style considerations but are obviously attracted by other more cerebral qualities in the gaming experience. I think if CM could have been called SIM WAR its sales would perhaps even eclipse that of CIV because there is no doubt that it is a far far superior game.

To be absolutely frank I think BFC are without par or equal at creating quality product but display the attitudes of hobyists when taking their product to market.

This may be a good thing as gread corrupts allways. Perhaps once BFC had got a sniff of all the green I think they could potentialy make perhaps we would see compromises slowly sneek into the CM series of games and this no doubt would be a tragedy.

Whew its good to get a rant out of the system.

[Gremlin]

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

That's an oversimplification.

Steve of BTS:

got news for some folks... the bulk of CM's audience is not the diehard turn based wargamer. I would guess only a tiny fraction of the people who purchased CM have not played and enjoyed RTS and FPS type games. Hell, at the very least they probably have purchased and played at least one of the Close Combat series. My personal favorite games of all time are (not in order):

War In Russia (Turn Wargame)

Kampfgruppe (Turn Wargame)

Marathon (FPS)

Duke Nukem (FPS)

Quake (FPS)

Warcraft II (RTS)

C&C Red Alert (RTS)

Carrier Command (RTS)

FA-18 (Flight Sim)

Hellcats over the Pacific (Flight Sim)

Decent (Flight Sim, sorta)

Space Raiders (Flight Sim, sorta)

OK, so out of 12 games named above... how many of them are a) wargames and turn based? Gee... not many! So if I am even remotely representative of CM's fanbase, then why on Earth should anybody presume to think that the majority of CM's fanbase would turn their noses up at either a RTS or a FPS type game? Well, good ones anyway...

From http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=004518;p=11

People who think CM is merely targeted at or ideally targeted at a small group of self-professed grogs just doesn't get it, imo. They're doing CM a huge disservice. Like DeanCo, I'm a CM evangelist or "Combat Missionary," and I'm convinced CM's appeal can be, and indeed is, broader than just some little niche group that only likes hardcore wargames and/or claims to not care about graphics (or places them below everything else in terms of importance).

CM's WeGO system could radically transfigure strategy gaming as we know it, bridging the gap between turn-based and real-time gaming in exciting new ways. But people need to hear about and play CM first for anything like that to ever happen, and when the graphics look dated, the likelihood of that ever happening isn't as great as it rightfully should be.

As for the importance of graphics to the game itself, they're absolutely vital to what CM is all about. One of the principal strengths of the game is that it removes the battle from some arbitrary 2D hexgrid and puts in a 3D simulation of realistic terrain, using 3D units. These aren't merely about eye candy--they have major effects on gameplay mechanics, like line of sight, to use an obvious example. In CM, you can make full use of every little dip in the terrain, every clump of trees, thanks to the 3D environment.

Furthermore, 3D visuals (and their level of quality) can be vital to the enjoyment of any game, including CM. I'm not the first or last to note how every action phase plays out like a miniature war movie, and I've read countless posts here over the past couple years that discuss little exciting moments in the game in visual, cinematic terms. (And of course, humans tend to be primarily visually oriented creatures, too. The fact that so many gamers get excited about graphics isn't some accident or the result of marketer brainwashing.)

The visuals help draw you into the action of CM, immersing you emotionally in the combat. That's vitally important, as much so as the historical details creating a reasonably accurate simulation of combat on the mathematical level. One of the chief strengths of CM, in fact, is the way it melds intellectual and emotional stimulation in equal measure.

Try this: see if you can imagine CM without its 3D graphics. It wouldn't be CM, would it? It stands to reason that graphics are a vital part of the game, and improving them further can make the game even better.

Now, how exactly one--or rather, how exactly BTS--prioritizes their improvement is a different matter.

[ October 28, 2002, 07:43 AM: Message edited by: Gremlin ]

[Gremlin]

The point I was making is that graphics should not take first priority over everything else in a mad pursuit to get "everybody" to play CM.

I don't think anyone favors a "mad" pursuit to entice every gamer into the CM camp. Nor does it seem anyone is seriously arguing that graphics should be the overriding priority of the developers. That would be foolhardy and unrealistic in the extreme. But there are those of us who would like to see more people introduced to CM because it's an innovative and entertaining game on a level few other games can match.

There are those of us who think that better graphics could be a powerful weapon in CM's already extensive arsenal for doing just that, but more importantly a way to make the game even better without ever watering down gameplay depth and historical accuracy. One can easily imagine how enhanced graphics (imagine the potential effects of dynamic lighting on night fights, for example) could add to the depth of the combat simulation, not detract from it.

[Gremlin]

The CM series is a truely fantastic series but unfortunately it seems to attract a certain type I will now coin the grog snob.

Let's be honest. This sort of debate has been going on here since the beginning, and the real motivation behind it seems to be the clash of the broader-minded gamers with a group of elitists who want CM as their very own little domain.

On the one hand, you have folks who play all sorts of games and appreciate CM from that wider persepctive. On the other hand, you have a generally elitist group of "grogs" or people who only play wargames that wants to keep CM for its very own, a group that falsely assumes shooters are only for knuckle-scraping apemen and that you can't like an RTS and also be fascinated by the intricacies of the development of the StuG.

It's just like when diehard fans of some little indie rock band get all upset when "their" band breaks into the mainstream. They wanted to keep it all for themselves and are sure only they know how to properly appreciate the music. It couldn't possibly appeal to those ignorant, unwashed masses, they assume, and if it did, it would of course have to be horribly diluted.

The fact is, there are those of us who are every bit as interested in tiny WWII minutiae as the next guy around here, but who also love great graphics in games and appreciate what they add to the gameplay experience.

[ October 28, 2002, 08:08 AM: Message edited by: Gremlin ]

[BulletRat]

Getting back to the root subject, I think that improving the graphics with the intention of making it a more attractive product to a wider audience has both its benefits and drawbacks.

On the side of benefits would of course mean more sales for Battlefront and a wider range of people to play.

Drawbacks would include a lesser quality of players and the probable inclusion of cheats.

Just about any game that has been successful in a big war has had cheats/hacks progammed for it - look at the Half-Life series* , Valve has had to write its own anti-cheat programs into the game just to keep the rife amount of cheats under control.

*I know some may say Half-Life is a FPS and Battlefronts games are Tactical/RTS but other big-name RTS' have had cheating rife in the user base (Starcraft anyone?), Total Annihilation was quite an excellent RTS with a moderately small sized user base and cheats were readily available for that.

BTW I was kidding about Starcraft, it's a wanna-be cartoon RTS as far as I'm concerned.

[Bruno Weiss]

BulletRat wrote:

Just about any game that has been successful in a big war has had cheats/hacks progammed for it - look at the Half-Life series

We don't need no stinking 3D shooters and cheaters. This here is realism gaming.

[BulletRat]

My point exactly. I'm an avid 3D gamer myself - and both an RTS and WWII fan, so CM suits me down to a T.

I was simply inferring that widening the user base could well invite disaster in terms of player relations and quality.

[deanco]

What Gremlin said. (Plus I want to try out my new sig.)

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Gremlin:

Right on Gremlin!

AND I would dare say we are not in the minority.

(those of us who " also love great graphics in games and appreciate what they add to the gameplay experience")

-tom w

[ October 28, 2002, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]