Jump to content

Graphics redesign, not an engine rewrite.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

Deanco! Ya ole sod. Where ya been? We had an APB out on ya a couple few threads back...

What new sig?

Hi Bruno! Yeah, I saw that thread. I'm still here. I'm trying to get the energy together to reanimate my CM website with some new CMBB content. It's sick, I already see something I coulda done better in the interface, and am gonna release that tiny mod soon. I'm playing CMBB, Battlefield 1942, Mafia, Divine Divinity.

Sorry to hijack the thread, carry on all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another thought--and it didn't even hurt!

When you discuss the importance of graphics in CM, ask yourself if you'd honestly be as likely to play the game if it were in black & white, the tanks were untextured wireframes, and the troops were literally stick figures. Ask yourself if you'd be more likely to play the game if it had a cutting edge graphic engine that took full advantage of today's hardware. Which would catch and hold your attention more readily? Which would you be more willing to buy? Which would be more fun and why?

Also, ask yourself if you've ever downloaded a graphics mod, and why. For that matter, ask yourself how much fun the game would be with old Atari bleeps and bloops instead of recorded voices and guns.

As much as CM appeals because of the way it seemingly brings history to life--the game often seems as much like a joint historical research project as an entertainment--and the way it lets you test sophisticated tactics based on real-world combat, part of its appeal is simply getting to play army men as an adult, to watch your Panther crest a hill, to see the enemy troops flee in panic under an arty barrage, to laugh gleefully as your AT gun rips into a T-34.

[ October 28, 2002, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: Gremlin ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Gremlin:

Here's another thought--and it didn't even hurt!

When you discuss the importance of graphics in CM, ask yourself if you'd honestly be as likely to play the game if it were in black & white, the tanks were untextured wireframes, and the troops were literally stick figures. Ask yourself if you'd be more likely to play the game if it had a cutting edge graphic engine that took full advantage of today's hardware. Which would catch and hold your attention more readily? Which would you be more willing to buy? Which would be more fun and why?

Also, ask yourself if you've ever downloaded a graphics mod, and why. For that matter, ask yourself how much fun the game would be with old Atari bleeps and bloops instead of recorded voices and guns.

As much as CM appeals because of the way it seemingly brings history to life--the game often seems as much like a joint historical research project as an entertainment--and the way it lets you test sophisticated tactics based on real-world combat, part of its appeal is simply getting to play army men as an adult, to watch your Panther crest a hill, to see the enemy troops flee in panic under an arty barrage, to laugh gleefully as your AT gun rips into a T-34.

I think the above is a bit of a strawman: you're making up an extreme postion to argue against that simply doesn't exist. I myself would continue to play the entire CM "series" from now until the end of time with just the stock graphics that came with CM:BO. Have I modded that? Yes, to an extent. Am I glad that BB has more graphic goodies? Yes, to an extent. But for me they are all extras. I don't need them to enjoy the game. But none of that means I would want the game reduced to wireframes - that's a rather silly extension.

And as others, including Steve, have already stated in this thread, no one is saying that graphics improvement is bad, or unnecessary. What some of us are saying, I think, is that graphics improvements, by themselves, are not the main focus of the game evolution.

-dale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Gremlin:

As much as CM appeals because of the way it seemingly brings history to life--the game often seems as much like a joint

oh..

I thought you meant..

As much as CM appeals because of the way it seemingly brings history to life--the game often seems as much like a joint as crack.I mean Crack troops smile.gif Ya its those CRACK troops that keep me so addicted to this game like a joint smile.gif

sorry could not help myself.

The game is addictive and the more eye candy that comes with it the more it will be LIKE Crack you buy on a CD through the mail smile.gif

Crack Troops, Crack Graphics, Crack Combat Mission

I think I am craving some more Combat Mission Crack

Gotta go!

-tom w

P.S. Yeah I am Over 40, just young at heart with a good memory still (well sorta smile.gif )

[ October 28, 2002, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the above is a bit of a strawman
I can see how you might take it that way, but the intent was to encourage people to openly reflect on the importance of graphics in the game to their experience of it. It was to raise the question: where do you draw the line between butt-ugly and practically unplayable, purely functional, and downright attractive.

It becomes too easy for some to overreact and vilify graphics as some sop to the "twitch crowd," as if the evolution of the CM series hinged on a strict, exclusive decision between great graphics or great gameplay. I'm convinced that the 3D terrain and units are an integral, vital part of the CM gameplay system and that the better they look, the more enjoyable the game can be, both on an esthetic and emotional level and quite possibly in terms of gameplay mechanics (perhaps the lights from fires or muzzle flashes in conjunction with spotting at night, for example).

[ October 28, 2002, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Gremlin ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...