Demo Review

[crazylegsmurphy]

Originally posted by theBrit:

Crazylegsmurphy,

I am Graphic Designer too, but I am also a wargamer. Have you thought we (designers) may look at things in TOO MUCH graphic detail...?

In my opinion yes the graphics could be better, but they are still good and functional, functional being the word here. Wargamers will be drunk on this vision of the battlefield, where as your average RTS player will be disappointed. You pushing the GFX point is a waste of your and our time here, as most wargamers (probably 70%+ of these boards) will be more than happy with the look.

Youre really fighting your corner here....I can see that but I think at this stage its quite obvious to all (you included) this game is not for you... So why are you still labouring the point, why are you still trying to convince the majority that this game is poor, when the overwhelming concensus is a big thumbs up?

You are correct I admit. I understand that there is a different mentality here than in the average RTS crowd. Yes, the graphics are for the most part functional...by no means "wow" but they work.

The reason I am going off is because I WANT to like this game, I have installed the demo 4 times now hoping each time I'll like it. The reason I am here still is because I hope that someone listens and makes it all that it could be.

Imagine this game with a CoH look...MAN!!! I would be peeing my pants! CoH is fun, but if they fixed some of the odd things about this game (AI, Pathfinding) and threw some graphics on it...this thing would outsell CoH in a split second, set some new standards, and be the new benchmark I think.

[pwncake]

i as an old CM (dont mind the tag because its my 8 name)

Iam very pleased how this game works. Ofcourse the game plays different but after een hour you get used to the cam and know how to get quick to frontline.

The tactics are different from CM because of the cover en entering buildings so you'll have to do a different setup which i normaly would do in CMBB or CMAK.

There you put your inf in the forest, trench but mostly in heavy buildings.

Still have to get used to when i push enter i see what my tank sees but when my turret turns i keep looking in same way (thats frustrating).

My tanks reversed perfectly and the reason why i got an victory is that my two paks kept the tanks al long time away from the brigde destroyed two tanks. So when the reinforsments arrived i only rushed the truck down the hill a let all the tanks shoot a tank battle. When the lost there tanks i lost nearly all mine but when the next russian tanks came my next reinforsments came. Those shot the tanks to hell and then saw russian inf running back to there lines and the scenario was over.

It was a really funny mission.

Keep up the good work

[John Kettler]

user73,

Not only was it truly twisted, but one of the names almost did me in via paroxysmal laughter. The name?

Mrs. B.J. Smegma!

Regards,

John Kettler

[theBrit]

Originally posted by crazylegsmurphy:

Imagine this game with a CoH look...MAN!!! I would be peeing my pants! CoH is fun, but if they fixed some of the odd things about this game (AI, Pathfinding) and threw some graphics on it...this thing would outsell CoH in a split second, set some new standards, and be the new benchmark I think.

Yes it would be a visual feast, but surely you know the history of this game, its years of title changes, dodgey development... BF have taken on this project and with the material they had to work with, they have done a good job (patches/mods will make it better). If, and its a hopeful if, if TOW is a success then we may get our ideal game in TOW2, but at the moment we have TOW and we have to work with what we've got.

I have to respectfully disagree about TOW ever being better than CoH (which I hated completely -borrowed a copy thankfully). They are different markets, totally different and cater to different gamers (and ages).

[InvaderCanuck]

Originally posted by crazylegsmurphy:

It is also the reason why innovation is gone and stagnation rules the video game industry these days.

When people buy games based JUST because they want to oogle per pixel shading garbage, you end up with 99% of the games on the market today.

No innovation.

No replayability.

No depth.

Anyone who has been playing PC games since the early/mid 90's can tell you that in most genre's that was the heyday. Graphics plateau'd and innovation ruled.

To sell your game you had to do something special.

Now to sell your game, you license the latest 3d engine and 2 million 12 year olds masturbate to it in their sleep.

Now, I would LOVE to have depth, innovation and graphics. My computer can certainly handle it.

The problem is these ideas tend to be mutually exclusive.

You have innovative in depth gameplay in games like Combat Mission. Hearts of Iron. Europa Universalis. Dominions.

The graphics, are for lack of a better word, terrible.

It doesn't matter to me, nor does it matter I am willing to bet to the majority of their hardcore client base. Why? We came to the realization nearly a decade ago, that THESE are the games that reside on your hard drive for 10 years. I still play CMBB several times a week.

I can't tell you the last time I played Dawn of War.

Sure it was cool for a few weeks. After that it was stale. Repetitive gameplay. Predictable strategies.

It is the same basic premise as CnC 1, AoE1, warcraft, starcraft ad nausim.

I've never played CoH, and I promise you that you give me 2 hours to get aquanted with the nuances of it and I will whip 95% of the people who have been playing it since it released.

I mastered the whole generic RTS genre after my 6th game of AoE when I had a 10 minute bronze age Yamamato Cav rush down.

[Moon]

crazylegsmurphy, I would suggest that you give up your hope and move on. Battlefront never has and is never going to chase the visual crowd.

It's difficult as is for a small 7 man outfit to be on par with the big boys. We're one of the few small indie gamers around in this market to be putting out 3D games like this. I am not talking about some outfits which are using licensed engines to create some clone FPS games with a few new graphics, but a developer/publisher with truly new and unique engines. Even the big guys are using, what, 2 or 3 base engines for all their games, and instead putting all their money into marketing and art. But I digress...

The time to get a game from a 80% score in graphics to above 90% is etxremely time and work intensive. You need big artwork teams for it. We will never ever spend that kind of time only to put in a few more explosions or model some shoestrings. We would ALWAYS prefer to put this time in to finetune the gameplay or realism aspects of the game.

We are, admittedly, probably stupid to do it this way because like you say, we could probably make a lot more money chasing the graphics crowd. But believe it or not, this is a conscious choice that we made when Battlefront was started, and we continue to make it every day.

And yes, it's a choice. You cannot merge COH and TOW together. It's physically impossible. Until everyone here has some kind of super-computer at home, you cannot have it all. And then there is the whole aspect of development times. TOW was in development for a long time already (although that included other unrelated reasons as well), but we're talking many many more years. That's a chase you cannot win as developer, not even with huge teams.

The big guys are doing what they're doing because even they cannot overcome the physical limits. It's a little bit much to ask us to do it.

As you should have seen by now, we do respect other opinions. It is your right to think of the game what you think and express it here. It's what these boards are for (and that's already more than you will be able to do on the forum of other publishers without having your thread deleted). You just totally started in the wrong way.

Martin

[TTorpedo]

I found Crazy "review" well written and reflecting important points. And certainly helpful to the gamers and Dev's.

The following bashing around i do not.

When i play Faces of War ( better than Coh on graphics & physic's in my opinion),... i get the same Uauuu feeling.. they should make a Close Combat with this engine, and yes I still play Close Combat. And Helpfully i will play ToW to.

I to work on the creative department and we can´t stop dreaming.

Can´t stop to dream a realistic game with teams moving from cover to cover, cleaning house to house on their one, AT guns that are actually concealed in a bush..and fully destructible terrain features, providing not candy eye but a full assortment of tactic opportunity's.

While i wait for this game i´m Happy to play Close Combat a 10 year old engine and Fow, 1 year old, and now ToW, 5 years? stil evaluating. It all bootons down to gameplay.

Lukly for us there are companys that still try to push the envelope on this litle corner of the market

By the way i could´t play Coh for more than a few hours its a great game on his on corner, but not may cup of tea, and frankly does not had nothing to the genre.

An easy trick when your drawing is to flip the drawing, suddenly all the "mistakes" pop out. They where always there you just can´t see it when you spend a lot of time working on it.

like wise newcomers can get used to the little Flaws on the other way Devs can learn a lot from the fresh look they provide.

[TuuSaR]

Biggest set-back is lack of close combat style battle feeling. For example player has pretty much no clue about LOS fields or cover in general.

Then you really cant make decisions so game just plays autonomously. Which is opposite of close combat series.

[Elementalism]

I fired up a tutorial and it seemed like it has potential. Unfortunately lastnight there wasnt time to play it for hours on end. But the 30 or so mins i spent playing it seemed like fun.

At first I nearly wet myself as my rig was rendering at 1 fps. But I remembered something about dual core processors having an issue. I disabled one cpu and it ran smooth as a hot knife through butter.

I will play it more tonight and over teh weekend. IMO this is where rts's need to head. Slower more complicated gaming. Not spit out x unit 500 times and send your entire group at the enemy base.

[DeLaVega]

Ehm, I`m not sure, if I`m right here, but the thread said something about a demo review, so I want to put a little review here, if it`s okay.

Hm, actually I can`t just start without saying something to crazylegsmurphy`s posts, but in my opinion he just tells it like it is. The game has the "better release now than never" taste and the arrows do look ugly.

But as someone who plays "Hearts of Iron" and "Take Command: 2nd Manassas" I also do look for the inner beauty.

The tank graphics of ToW I love, the first Tiger screenshot had the buy it stamp already on it. About the sounds I posted enough.

What I don`t like is the little feedback you get from your units. While I`m moving with the cam over the battlefield I don`t pay attention to "Karl bla bla bla" was killed. But that "Karl whatever" was the driver of the Panther, meaning the whole tank was killed, makes me feel that I missed something. ...what I missed indeed.

In CM the men and tanks gave more response to the battlefield (in my opinion). But the repeated "Our tracks are damaged" everytime you come by this damaged tank gives me the feeling that another one was hit.

Aren`t there any markers/ arrows to show from what unit an own unit is attacked? Since I often zoom out and don`t see the traces of the firefights I was wondering where the gun/ tank fire came from.

In the moment the game looks a little like a shootout from starting positions. Since you have trenches in the tutorial, in the Seelow mission, in the released screenshots and videos, I really hope that the battles won`t be so static all the time and are about movement. Because with the easy to destroy AT guns it`s not necessary to go around them and attack from behind.

I really hope the full version has a nice variety of engagements.

Two questions remain from reading the manual:

What does b/m stand for in the small unit window to the right, above the main interface window (where all the armor is listed).

And what do the small red/ orange icons stand for which are placed on the left side of this unit window?

[Adaephon]

I would have to agree that the LOS presentation, as it stands, is an issue. Yes, I do understand the need for active LOS in a game of this type, having been a fairly avid player of the CM series, but I believe they got it right there in ways they've failed to here.

Okay, so again there was no huge indicator you could turn on to gauge the visual range and what could be seen and what would not with CM, but this was backed up by the turn based nature. Watching the turns back over you always had the time to spot anything you may not have first time through. Or Second. Or third.

I just don't think it works well in real time. At the very least, if it were to I would imagine a similar system to CMs sound contacts is necessary. I believe that if sight is not clearly indicated then there must be something to back that up and to compensate for the instant reactions required to situations in an RTS, as supposed to CM where you were given time to plan and think on your response to the development of a squad appearing out from cover

[ April 19, 2007, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: Adaephon ]

[Scipio]

Originally posted by crazylegsmurphy:

The reason I am going off is because I WANT to like this game, I have installed the demo 4 times now hoping each time I'll like it. The reason I am here still is because I hope that someone listens and makes it all that it could be.

Crazy, what's the sense of all your writing? Do you think somebody will redesign the game egine to make your day?

TOW is not CoH. CoH is a completly different piece of cake. You should better compare TOW with the old Close Comat games. Then you should compare it with another attempt to adopt the CC-gameplay with a 3d graphic, a game called Squad Assault from Matrix Games. Maybe you can still get a demo at their homepage. I guess Matrix games isn't ashamed of very much...

When you did so, and your are still pissed off, well, don't buy this game, play CoH and be happy. Don't waste your time with requesting things that will likely not happen!

I have expected that TOW will be some kind of modern CC. It is. I have something to do until CM:SF!

[seppDieter]

it doesnt feel like close combat unfortunately, in close combat you were THE commander, and you were aware of everything going on, from wich soldier has how many ammo left, to what soldier just got killed. by gods sake you even knew some soldiers name by head!... here its like "hey wait a minute, when did all my tanks and at guns got killed? i didnt notice anything" paying attention to infantry squads or even individual soldiers is futile, while it was the key to victory in close combat.

i feel like im spectating an AI battle, and the more i intervien, the more i get upset

[UTexGrad]

IMHO, sound is the most important part of any wargame, especially one like this. If I hear a machine gun start rattling off I want to be able to tell from the sound that it's an MG-42.

I love good graphics, don't get me wrong, but give me great sound in a wargame and I can really immerse myself in it no matter what the graphics look like.

(As an aside, historical accuracy in a graphical form is awesome too. I can't tell you how many hours I've spent using the CC Mod utility to make sure the vehicles and soldiers were accurate for the battle I was fighting. I hope we see something similar from TOW. THAT would make me pee my pants!)

[Vergeltung]

the complainers are all the same people, with all the same old tired, irrelevant, and tedious pet peeves/complaints.

the fact that someone is still here, complaining, dozens of posts later speaks more to the character and nature of the poster than anything else. :eek:

check the names; it's the same set of people complaining about every tedious non-issue ever discussed here (e-license, pre-release dates, release dates, when this, and when that, blah blah blah.).

Jeebus. it's a bunch of women at a coffee klatsch fer chrissakes.

[sonar]

I was worried about this game when I saw the first screens and the huge pristene expanse of farmland with one trench half a dozen inf a few tanks and of course the picnicking pak front. The demo has unfortunately realized these fears. You can't go on about realism and then say with a straight face that the demo is supposed to be the Seelow heights,it looks like a bunch of re-enactors meeting up on a quiet Sunday in some farmers field.Example of one of it flaws (am I wrong on this)? How can I tell if I can see an area I'm looking at? do i have to wait for a potential target to be there to find out? Played CM for years and still love it and thats the only reason I'm percevering with this and trying to give it a chance. If I had got this demo anywhere else It would already be gone from my hard drive. As for crazy, everyone trying to chase him from the forum because he criticised the game is out of order. It appears to me there is a small element of the emperors new clothes syndrome evident on the forum and more than a few what we in Scotland call "Sooks". Anyway thats how it looks from here.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

sonar,

we aren't trying to chase crazymurpy away. But if every post he makes is negative and mostly stemming from an unwillingness to get informed or help himself that just gets on my nerves. I'm only human! If someone gives valid criticism I am more then happy to help address the issue or pass it on to the team.

Emperors new clothes? I've been testing this game since November. I know it's faults (yes, it has its faults) better then most

[Elmar Bijlsma]

On battles, fair point, this isn't a true representation of the battle of Seelow Heights, or a part thereof. It's a battle inspired by Seelow Heights. They might not be 100% realistic but they are fun, I assure you. Mostly. Gah! Avalanche!

*falls to the fround and twitches*

[crazylegsmurphy]

negative and mostly stemming from an unwillingness to get informed

You want a pat on the back and a plate of cookies, will that make you feel better? My comments are negative because I'm not here to pin your crayon pictures up on my fridge and say, "Good job Honey!"

I'm a person who is trying to like this game, and I did what anyone would do, played the demo, and then asked questions regarding it. You say I have an unwillingness to learn, well that just seems odd considering I am here asking questions.

Or maybe what you're actually saying is, "Stop asking questions we don't want to answer because our answers might bring to light some of the issues you are saying?"

I am not unwilling to help myself, but what is the point of a forum, if people aren't able to ask questions? Has it ever crossed your mind that others might have similar questions?

"I'm only human" isn't a very good excuse when you're asking for peoples money in my opinion. If you admit the game has faults, then instead of bashing people who come up with what they perceive to be other faults, maybe it might be an idea to take note, and see if it's possible to fix them.

Or, just simply say, "We don't care that you can't do that, we're not fixing it!" Then anyone who is sitting on the fence can make an informed choice.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Originally posted by crazylegsmurphy:

You want a pat on the back and a plate of cookies, will that make you feel better? My comments are negative because I'm not here to pin your crayon pictures up on my fridge and say, "Good job Honey!"

Not asking for that at all, though if those are chocolate chip cookies... yes please thank you.

I'm a person who is trying to like this game,

Anyone reviewing your posting record may find that a little hard to believe.

and I did what anyone would do, played the demo, and then asked questions regarding it. You say I have an unwillingness to learn, well that just seems odd considering I am here asking questions.

Yes, odd indeed.

Or maybe what you're actually saying is, "Stop asking questions we don't want to answer because our answers might bring to light some of the issues you are saying?"

by all means bring up issues. OTOH, I'd prefer you not to be so uterly negative about features you'd unsderstand if you'd JUST RTFM-ed!

I am not unwilling to help myself, but what is the point of a forum, if people aren't able to ask questions? Has it ever crossed your mind that others might have similar questions?

But you aren't really asking questions, are you. Just moan, moan moan. And if you had some serious issues (there are a few) that would be fine. But you haven't, really.

"I'm only human" isn't a very good excuse when you're asking for peoples money in my opinion. If you admit the game has faults, then instead of bashing people who come up with what they perceive to be other faults, maybe it might be an idea to take note, and see if it's possible to fix them.

Or, just simply say, "We don't care that you can't do that, we're not fixing it!" Then anyone who is sitting on the fence can make an informed choice.

I'm not employed be BFC, I owe you nothing. If this game tanks it's no skin of my back. I'd be a little sad as I think it's one of the best games in it's genre, that's all. As a non-employee all I can do is alert the team to issues that come up.

I'm all for customers making an informed and I'm pretty sure BFC does too. I must stress informed, something you fall well short off, despite best effort on my/our part.

[PeterLorre86]

This arguement is still going on?

My opinion: This game is ok. It's no Combat Missions. Something to mess with between PBEMs and CMSF's release.

Negative-

-Feels awkward, clunky, men dont follow my orders to a degree i expect(dont hold ground, etc)

-too much baby sitting for real time, switching ammo on 5 tanks, trying to get my men to use grenades, pause button is nice but i dont see how it will be possible to play multiplayer

-relativly small amount of units in battles

-terrian: its ugly, and it is not apparent to me it has any effect on my units ability to hide/take cover (sometimes my tank can shoot through 5 rows of bushes, sometimes only 1)

Positive-

-tanks look very nice, expecially when pieces come off

-the whole exp. system makes for interesting campaigns and unit management, more reason to keep your men alive

Well, those are my thoughts. This game has had a long and troubled developement, most of the time not in the hands of Battlefront, i dont think you can blame them, they did what they could with what they had. Cant wait for CMSF.

[crazylegsmurphy]

Perhaps have the issues I have with this game are simply cost related. What I mean is, I remember when my friend and I happened across two copies of Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds a few years ago for $5 each.

We played that game for so long, and I think it was basically because it felt like an awesome value for $5!

With ToW, now that I have tried the demo, I guess I am just a tad cranky because I WANT to get the game, but when I ask about what I perceive as flaws in the game, people just respond harshley.

I know this seems insulting, but if I happened across this game in a $10 - 20 bin, I would be totally happy because I would feel I got a decent value out of the game. But for this game to be charging pretty much what top of the line games are charging, for outdated animation, graphics, etc...it just seems like I'm being asked to support a small company because they should be like my "buddy" or something instead of a serious game making company.

It just seems wrong for the Devs to come on here and say, "We don't have the budgets of the big boys!" yet they want to charge the same amount for the game? I dunno...

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

I selected the specialty AP rounds, directed the AT guns to immediately shoot at the two Pz III's, and had no problem in killing them. Afterwards, the AT guns killed the remainder of the Pz II's with their regular ammo. The AT rifles seem to be pretty much useless, except against the rear of a tank.

As far as the Seelowe scenario is concerned, I'm not surprised the Germans lose. Look at the date folks!

And look at the Soviet OOB. They have some pretty nasty stuff there, what with the JS-2's, Su-152's, and Su-100's. The Su-100 gun had comparable AP penetration to the Tiger II's upgraded 88MM. Same with the JS's 128mm. And the Su-152's are firing a 152 mm shell, doesn't matter if it is AP or HE, it is going a make a mess. A 152mm HE shell can kill with simple concussion, doesn't have to penetrate the tank's armour.

[Dennis50]

CLM ...seems like a no-brainer to me. I would say don't buy the game ...Period, end of story.

Regards,

Gunz

[crazylegsmurphy]

This is a story?

I think instead I'll be so annoying that you all hate me, but maybe late at night when the Devs are laying in bed, they'll say, "Damn that Crazylegs, he's right!"

Then I'll show up here one day and everything'll be fixed, and I'll be like, "Sweet, best game ever!"