Gamespot hands-on preview

[Matchstick]

Looks like Gamespot managed to have a play with a beta copy of the game.

It's a positive preview but there isn't much really new so I suspect most people where will be interested in a) the pictures (which I think are new) and that Gamespot think it's due to be released in June as well (though they probably got that news from Paradox) http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/combatmissionshockforce/news.html?sid=6170779

[pad152]

Two items.

1.

but the rest of the battlefield doesn't look as nice in the early version of the game we played. Hopefully, the terrain will be cleaned up and will look better in the final game.

- strange, most games look better as they get closer to release?

2.

The only hard part is that the camera controls take a while to get used to, as they go against the grain of most strategy games.

- Och!

[Sgt Joch]

thanks for the link, I am a bit worried about this comment:

"While Shock Force does look better than its predecessors, it's still got a fairly rudimentary graphics engine compared to more mainstream games.The intricate detail on vehicles is very impressive, as you can see hatches open and close and infantrymen stick their heads up out of a hatch or scramble off of an armored personnel carrier, but the rest of the battlefield doesn't look as nice in the early version of the game we played. Hopefully, the terrain will be cleaned up and will look better in the final game."

Hopefully, it's due to the game still being in BETA.

[flintlock]

Appreciate the heads-up to the preview, thanks.

[MikeyD]

If what they were reviewing was what's in their screenshots the reviewer may have been applyng FPS standards to a large-scale dynamic tactical sim game. I suppose if BFC works hard enough to pretty-up their graphics to match FPS levels we'd happily settie for tiny maps, low unit count and slow refresh rates. But wouldn't we rather have 1km wide maps, large forces and movie-quality screen speeds?

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

If what they were reviewing was what's in their screenshots the reviewer may have been applyng FPS standards to a large-scale dynamic tactical sim game. I suppose if BFC works hard enough to pretty-up their graphics to match FPS levels we'd happily settie for tiny maps, low unit count and slow refresh rates. But wouldn't we rather have 1km wide maps, large forces and movie-quality screen speeds?

I don't disagree with your viewpoint and I am quite willing to sacrifice some graphic quality for full realistic fidelity, but the comment of "rudimentary graphics engine" does raise some questions.

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, I don't know what to make of that comment about the graphics engine. Of course it has only improved and not gone backwards since their first preview. So that's a head scratcher. The only thing I can think of is that they tried it on a slower computer or used different graphics quality settings. CM's engine is set up to adjust graphics quality to keep framerate up, so depending on your hardware, settings, and of course the scenario the graphical quality can vary considerably. Therefore, I would recommend nobody pay any attention to that comment because it is too unqualified, and likely flawed, to have any real meaning.

A completely different part of his comment is the comparison with FPS games. It is very true to say that our environments do not seem as rich and as varied as the top FPS games out there, or top down RTS games. That's the trade off one has to expect from a game which offers:

1. Flexible, user created maps instead of a handful of "canned" maps that were custom designed and assembeled by a half dozen artists and scenario guys. We could make a map that tops even the best if all we had to do was make one map and keep you monkeys out of the scenario making business

2. Extremely large maps that can be anything from flat desert to a dense urban environment. There are all sorts of tricks and what not that we can't code because we aren't able to make assumptions about what the maps will be composed of. With the handmade maps it's a totally different story. The programmer can say to the designer "if you have LOS more than 400m, I'm going to have to cut out this great shortcut I'm doing, which in turn will cause a noticable speed hit". So the designer refrains from putting in whatever element the programmer says will be a problem. When you leave it up to the end user to make maps, such assumptions are much harder to make work.

3. CM's battles can be huge by FPS standards. I'm not just talking about the size of the maps, but also the number of units. Units slaughter framerate with wild abandon It's not just their 3D representation, though that doesn't help. I'm talking about needs for LOS calculations, weapons effects, path finding, AI computations, etc. Most FPS games have a dozen entities on each side to keep track of. That's about 85% fewer units that even our average sized battle has.

4. We don't restrict camera position. Most FPS games keep you at ground level and most RTS top down. Both restrictions dramatically reduce the amount of units and battlefield you can see, therefore they dramatically reduce the hit to the framerate. That in turn means they can put in more detailed terrain than we can. Especially when one considers that all of the previous points I mentioned are made worse by a free floating camera.

Uhmmm... I guess I could keep going with this, but I think you get the point

Steve

[panzermartin]

As in CMx1 much will depend on the map creator I think. Some maps can make the game look really ugly while others can be even picturesque. It's all about composition...customizability has its costs also.

[securityguard]

I noticed in one screenshot that the craters actually have deformed terrain. Does this game have real time terrain deformation?

[flamingknives]

IIRC it does. It was in one of the previous game magazine review threads.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, there is realtime terrain deformation. And it is sweet

Steve

[SgtMuhammed]

So I can see how many cruise missiles it will take to turn a mountain into a molehill? Sweet.

[Sergei]

Can we maximize the terrain deformation settings from some config file so that we'd get a Scorched Earth/Worms type battlefield?

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by pad152:

[QB] Two items.

1.

- strange, most games look better as they get closer to release?

2QUOTE]

I think he’s just using awkward English. He’s not saying “as nice as in the early version of the game”, therefore I think the early version of the game he’s referring to is the one he’s playing on currently.

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Therefore, I would recommend nobody pay any attention to that comment because it is too unqualified, and likely flawed, to have any real meaning.

No problem Steve, I will wait until I see the much improved "fairly rudimentary graphics engine" in action before I pass judgement.

[Steiner14]

Does CMSF support multi-core CPUs?

[flintlock]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

Does CMSF support multi-core CPUs?

A better question may be whether CM:SF is a true multithreaded application. A program can be only single-threaded, yet still support multi-core processors.

[panzermartin]

I really really hope CMSF wont have the FPS problems of TOW due to dual core compatibility issues. I'll throw my new pc out of the window if the only games I had planned to play are slow and jerky. And CMSF sounds like a hell of a CPU intensive game

[luderbamsen]

Screw the preview, this game's gonna be sweet!

As I belive I've mentioned before, one of the first reviews I ever read (in a newspaper) slammed a turn-based squad strategy game as being cumbersome, boring and with poor graphics. I even warned a friend not to buy it. He did anyway, and we played UFO: Enemy Unknown (arguably one of the best games made for PC, ever) like there was no tomorrow.

CM:SF is one of less than a handful of games that I'm really looking forward to, and you can bet I'll keep yapping about it to everyone an his mother when it is released.

[securityguard]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Yes, there is realtime terrain deformation. And it is sweet

Steve

I want your game a whole lot.

[Sgt Joch]

I agree with Luderbamsen, this is the only game I have been really looking forward to since CMAK came out in 2003, we the captive brethern are already sold and it will take more than a gamespot preview to dissuade us.

The issue for Battlefront would be more the loss of potential sales among the great unwashed masses that will see a lukewarm or negative review.

In my case, I am already sold on the game, even though I am a bit disappointed that it only has a "fairly rudimentary graphics engine".

[Peter Cairns]

I think one issue that might be troubling people with the look of the game is that the maps don't have the variety we as CM players are used to, mostly because it's still beta, and it's in testing.

At the moment most of the urban scenes look like two or three blocks from midtown US or an industrial park have been uprooted and planted in the middle of the desert.

I am pretty sure that in the final game, there will be far more in the way of smaller strcuutures, fields and walls in the foreground, particularly along the routes in to towns.

If you compare the map in the first CMBO demo with the detail in the final game it's a lot different, and even comparing the quality of the scenario maps in CMBO with CMBB is a big step.

I am pretty sure right now the empahasis is in getting the graphics to clearly show what the underlieing engine is doing in terms of correct movement, LOS and fire solutions, in effect game play.

As BF have always said too many modern games focus all there efforts of eye candy, and play like pigs, and that's not what makes a good game in there view.

I am hoping they are aiming higher in terms of quality ( if not fast profit) than top of the charts for two weeks and in the bargin bucket by the end of the month.

That's certainly always been their philosophy, quality over quantity, repect before popularity.

Peter.

[luderbamsen]

For PR purposes, it might be a good idea if BFC pull out all the stop for the demo, in terms of providing a highly varied terrain, even if authenticity suffer a bit

[panzermartin]

There are some noticeable improvements in these shots. New nicer smoke, more realistic tracers, dumpsters, street lights, variable fighter uniforms, cool blue-green mosque(minarets?)...patience and creativity will make fantastic environments in this one. The fixed 45/90 degrees orientantion of objects is one of the things that limit visual variety and I miss some parked cars too, but the possibilitites are already vast. Btw, what happened to this distance haze effect...just a slight amount of fog for the shake of atmosphere?