TOW graphics quality ?

[franz]

I am a MAJOR Combat Mission fan, and was blown away when I head about TOW's upcoming release.

But...

it is just me or do the graphics seem a bit below-par ?

I mean, looking at the screenshots, the graphics look like no better than the "first person shooters" I was playing a couple of years ago.

Is the graphic engine in TOW "state of the art", is it old technology from a couple of years ago.

Sorry to say it, but I was exepcting a bit more.

[zmoney]

Thank you for your post.

[traemyn]

Couple things to remember before you judge..

I believe this game has been in development since early 2002 (or before) and has switched hands at least once.

In a game that puts realism BEFORE eye-candy you can't expect it to have the best graphics. The way you describe the graphics "a bit below-par" is EXACTLY what you should expect from developers that care more about gameplay than graphics. If you expect anything more, your opinion will not be respected by anyone here.

[Vegeorite]

For a game of this type the graphics are without parallel (from what I've seen).

It's a shame that games like Sudden strike with stunning graphical effects have such idiotic and unrealistic gameplay compared to say... for example... Close Combat. There are a frustratingly growing number of marvellous-looking games with utterly crass production values, aimed at the 'builder' masses.

At this point I suspect many are just glad that SOMEONE is able to stand back and make the link with basic history and physics AND do a very passable job of the artwork/scenery/effects at the same time.

I'm not damning with feint praise here - to my eye the game is a looker.

Beef up the infantry roster, work in building entry, a few more opportunities for concealment and cover and it'd be cock on.

[Sergei]

Possibly, but then TOW ain't an FPS.

[iplaygames2]

I'm glad it's not cutting edge. Gives people with older PCs (me!) a snowballs chance in Hades to run this thing.

[Flanker15]

Well they're certainly a huge leap over the Combat Mission engine's graphics!

[Shabe.]

I can't understand the point of that thread... Ok, you're not satisfied with the graphics and i agree it's not on-par with nowdays FPS, but did you realy expected that much? Also don't forget that the engine handles 4x4km detalied maps in real time, i can't think of other game capable of that.

Personaly I'm more concerned about other things than graphics.

[GS_Hinkel]

hmmm just imagine the HUGE amount of FPS you would have when running Company of Heroes on a 4x4 KM map ...

[CoolColJ]

if it looks as good as Medieval Total War 2 then I'll be happy and it comes pretty close from what I've seen of the MTW2 demo - similar "art style" anyway

[Balder]

The Engine is, afaik, very nice. A wargame does not has to be "state of the art" or full of effect-firework. It is also important that the game is able to run on older computers - because not all people have the newest things in their machine. At all, I think we cannot really complain about the graphics of this upcoming game - moreover I am very happy about the style of this engine, which shows us the battlefield in a natural and realistic way.

[MikeyD]

From what I can see the historical accuracy of the tank skins is pretty much spot-on for most of the vehicles. That's a far cry from the old "If it looks something like a tank its close enough" school of thought.

Sometimes I wonder just what the 'next level' of realism is some people are expecting! A probe inserted into the back of thier skull for 'Matrix' style virtual reality? And whatever level of detail they get we know they're going to complain about the system requirements to run it.

[franz]

thanks for the comments and yes, I realised my comment would be met with howls of derision. How dare I voice criticism of the "holy grail"!

I will submit myself to a session of self-flagellation as a form of repentment !

However I still stand by my comment.

Yes, dare I admit it, even to a grognard such as myself, I regard graphics to be VERY important (shame on me), ASWELL AS gameplay. Is it really necessary to sacrifice one for the other ?

Although the game does look wonderful, I think a little more "oomph" in the graphics department would have turned what is probably a wonderful game into an outstanding game. That was all I was saying.

[TuuSaR]

Yes game graphics doesnt look "state of the art" but its no worry. Only thing I worry is model animations that I havent seen yet.

Gives people with older PCs (me!) a snowballs chance in Hades to run this thing.

Its not always that simple, for example code could be better in newer engine.

[traemyn]

Originally posted by franz:

... Is it really necessary to sacrifice one for the other ?

Although the game does look wonderful, I think a little more "oomph" in the graphics department would have turned what is probably a wonderful game into an outstanding game. That was all I was saying.

yes is almost always necessary in 'the real world' unless your Publisher is EA, THQ, Ubisoft, etc you get the picture. Point is there will always be sacrifices. If you start a game project with gameplay and realism more important than graphics then the first 'sacrifice' is obvious. Developers do not have unlimited money to do what they want with. And unless you get EA or someone to publish a game with gameplay/realism over graphics (wont happen ever btw) then there is a possibility for un-matched graphics with un-matched gameplay and realism.

Also, the target audience for CM, CC, and (imo a lesser exent b/c the graphics to me look great) ToW are more forgiving in the graphics area b/c they understand this. Like others said this audience on average is older and I would wager more have older computers than the FPS audience.

Medieval Total War 2 demo just came out and doesn't support AMD Athlon, AMD Athlon XP/MP processors. How many people here have one of those? Probably more than you think. With this genre you get less of that crap.

[Panzerjäger653]

However I still stand by my comment.

Yes, dare I admit it, even to a grognard such as myself, I regard graphics to be VERY important (shame on me), ASWELL AS gameplay. Is it really necessary to sacrifice one for the other ?

Although the game does look wonderful, I think a little more "oomph" in the graphics department would have turned what is probably a wonderful game into an outstanding game. That was all I was saying.

I agree with that ! I don't think in this age that the arguement of the gameplay is great so screw the graphic is valid (and being accused of being some kind of arcade junkie when you mention graphics and being told to f*ck off and buy an XBOX360 or play C&C is valid either).

From what I can see the gameplay is already there (and has been for a while - CC & CM from what I have read on this forum) - its time to bring the graphics to the next level and why not have both ? I think TOW will deliver - sure it will not satisfy everyone - inc. those hardcore heads on this forum - but is it not better than anything that has gone before ?

[Darkmath]

5 years ago, I would say graphics is a very important element.

For realism or simply eye candy purpose, graphics still could be enhanced.

Nowadays, we come to a point where graphics innovations don't bring surprise anymore.

Now, what it matters is rendering the same graphic quality from the FPSs on large map.

Following the screenshots I see about ToW, the engine cannot handle dense woods.

[GS_Hinkel]

hmmm just as a sidenote...

you dont want a game wif super duper über gfx like CoH with the maps, calculation and things like that

because you would have like 2-3 fps

even with a 1337 10000$ pc you wont be able to run 4x4 KM maps with top of the notch gfx

you can choose

ubergfx and arcardey gameplay

or realism and good gfx

[Panzerjäger653]

Originally posted by GS_Hinkel:

hmmm just as a sidenote...

you dont want a game wif super duper über gfx like CoH with the maps, calculation and things like that

because you would have like 2-3 fps

even with a 1337 10000$ pc you wont be able to run 4x4 KM maps with top of the notch gfx

you can choose

ubergfx and arcardey gameplay

or realism and good gfx

Can't we have something in between ? (I don't mean the arcardey gameplay - but ubergfx - surely the technology is up to it ? - damn I am even writing like you !!??)

[Bencoder]

I think the game was somewhat high-end graphics-wise when it first went into development. But, as someone else pointed out, that was a few years ago. This game suffered from problems with publisher support and that led to delays.

At least it found a good home with BF and will actually be released.

[CoolColJ]

Originally posted by GS_Hinkel:

hmmm just as a sidenote...

you dont want a game wif super duper über gfx like CoH with the maps, calculation and things like that

because you would have like 2-3 fps

even with a 1337 10000$ pc you wont be able to run 4x4 KM maps with top of the notch gfx

you can choose

ubergfx and arcardey gameplay

or realism and good gfx

MTW2 looks good, big detailed maps with dense foilage and trees and it has tons of units on the map, more than TOW I bet. And better draw distance than COH

And runs well enough on my 4-5 year old system now

So you can have your cake and eat it

Its the GPU that does most of the work graphics wise anyway.

[Panzerjäger653]

what is MTW2 ? Sounds good

[CoolColJ]

Originally posted by Panzerjäger653:

what is MTW2 ? Sounds good

Medieval Total War 2

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=020537

[aleader]

Also, the target audience for CM, CC, and (imo a lesser exent b/c the graphics to me look great) ToW are more forgiving in the graphics area b/c they understand this. Like others said this audience on average is older and I would wager more have older computers than the FPS audience.

I am a CM\Close Combat\Steel Panthers\West Front wargamer who also plays LOMAC, COH, MTW, and yes, even COD, HL 2, and F.E.A.R. I am 33 (older by gamer standards I guess) and have a mid-range system (Athlon 64 3800, GF 7600GT) that will be more than capable of running TOW. Systems are ridiculously cheap these days. I recall paying $400 in '95 for a 4MB stick of RAM, and almost $500 to upgrade from a 486SX25 to a smoking fast 486DX33. I don't even want to admit to what I paid for an 8MB Monster 3D card when it first came out. And 'older' people generally make quite a lot more money than teens last time I checked. Could it be that wargamers are just bigger tightwads than the rest?

I've never bought into that BS that war\sim gamers should just be happy with gameplay at the sacrifice of quality sound\graphics\effects. A quality game environment can make a so-so gameplay experience truly special. That's what made CM so good when it first came out. It's also the reason I kept on going back to games like M1 Tank Platoon 2 even though it was really just a BRDM\T-72 turkey-shoot.

Realism has been done before. The hook with CM (for me anyways) was the 3D landscape and ability to (finally) be able to 'see and hear' the battle waged realistically, not just on some boring hex grid. Games like LOMAC, GRAW, IL2 (old now, but still the best WW2 sim out there), and the upcoming Armed Assault, CM:SF and T-34 vs Tiger (I think the horrid title has changed) are finally giving aspiring warmongers like us what we've deserved for years.

Actually, I think the graphics in TOW are pretty good and I like the look and feel of the engine. Truly without realistic gameplay it would get old fast, and I am really chomping at the bit to get at a true successor to Close Combat. But make no mistake, we deserve the complete package and should vigorously support those game companies (like BF) that are willing to give it to us.