The look of CM - were are we going from here?

[Scipio]

Look at CMSF: buildings still look like they are made of LEGO bricks and they are placed on the map like LEGO bricks, roads are still ruler-straight, maps are floating into emptiness etc etc; and worst of all - the maps are nearly static. Building damage ain't much more than a place holder. Trees are indestructable (what makes them to the strongest fortifications, BTW)...etc etc etc

I guess it would be rather unfair to expect that such a small design team like BFC could keep up with the fast pace of development as we had in the last decade; and I do not expect that CM looks like Crysis or whatever. But I wonder how future plans for CM in regard of graphic development do look like! With all respect, but their doesn't seem to have much happend except some more polygons on the models, compared to CMx1. How about free rotatable and placeable buildings with realistic - and realistic looking - damage? Free drawable roads and rivers? Some kind of periphery arround the accessible part of the map. Generally a map that is simulated in a realistic way, both in regard of gameplay and look, with everything destrucable? I'm not just speaking about eye-candy only - the map is part of a realistic simulation, as important as realitic unit behavior, shooting results and so on.

I don't need to be a game publisher to say that sales fall and rise with the game graphics today. CMx2 is still a great game, and it's big fun to play. But were is it going (speaking of the things mentioned above)!?

[Charlie901]

I would just like to see Tanks/AFV's with varying degrees of damage when their hit/taken out and abandoned (and/or corresponding visual hit marks ala CM1)... and some secondary explosions from burning Tanks/AFV's with a turrent or too poping into the air.

[Moon]

The modular base of the completely new CMx2 engine will allow us to, over time, add to it without sacrificing past work (like was necessary with the old CMx1 engine; no improvements without throwing out past work out of the window). In theory therefore we should be able to slowly close the gap to the multi-million $ teams with dozens if not hundreds of programmers, artists etc.

In fact, if you compare CMSF (at the level of the upcoming v1.10 - where, by the way, the tree damage model has been improved) to some games out there that are made at HUGELY bigger budgets, it can stand its own quite easily. As long at least as you compare apples to apples.

With all respect, but their doesn't seem to have much happend except some more polygons on the models, compared to CMx1.

Heh, when was the last time you fired up a CMx1 game?

[cabal23]

With much respect to the developer, I agree some things seem dated or over complicated. But in the same respect, some things like the editor are ridiculously easy to use. Things that seem over complicated are roads(highways), water(or lack of), changing the interior of building so clearing building can be tailored to force troops to not just walk through walls, but actually use door placed inside buildings(currently it is a huge task of detailing the inside of buildings with much grace. You always end up changing something you don't want to change..it is very frustrating), troops exiting vehicles and standing around to get shot as they form up(I am worried what happens when 25 marines disembark), and everything else the OP mentioned. I am fully behind BF and will gladly give them my money. I just hope they are hearing our pleas when the next version of this game is created. I still can't find any game nearly as accurate as this as far as a modern setting so anything they improve upon is a plus.

[Jason1980]

Have you seen the European Buildings Mod that 101stParatroop made? I love it! Maybe someone will make others. I think the fact that CMSF can be modded is fantastic. I also think the graphics are much better in CMSF than CMAK. I have always been impressed with Battlefronts commitment to the games they make.

[Roter Stern]

Having played all the recent graphics blockbusters - i.e. Crysis, Vegas2, Age of Conan, etc - I can say without a shadow of doubt that graphics do not make a great game. Not to say it wasn't clear to me up until this point, especially considering that I still play X:Com on a regular basis. Sure those 2D sprites rendered in 640x480 resolution look a quite goofy on a 22-inch monitor, but ultimately it's the gameplay features that capture your attention, not the DirectX 10 glitter.

Personally, I'd much rather have the Devs spend their time introducing new features and improving upon existing ones. For example, I'd much rather have them add a mechanism to show detailed hits and damage, than a fancy animation showing a turret getting blown off a tank. Or I'd rahter have the ability to share ammo between units, as opposed to improving the models to the point where you can see each individual handgranade on the soldiers tactical vests. …etc…etc..

[M1A1TC]

I am fully behind BF and will gladly give them my money.

And how is that an incentive for BFC to improve the game? You are still going to give them money no matter what they put out.

Even if you said "I am not giving you any more of my money until you fix ....etc" it will still not change anything. They will just move on to another customer. BFC can only do what they want and what they have budget to do. Dont expect miracles

[Earl Grey]

Well, since we're already discussing features - I'd like to REALLY get into the action like being one of those little pixel soldiers in 1st person view or a tank commander... I know it's never gonna happen, but one can at least dream. And a proper WW2 tank simulation is still off by a long shot, not even "Panzer Elite" was THAT good! (Sorry for getting somewhat off-topic here.)

[mike_the_wino]

And how is that an incentive for BFC to improve the game? You are still going to give them money no matter what they put out.

No I am not. Don't particularily like this modern warfare, so I will be skipping those modules even though I bought CMSF.

Even if you said "I am not giving you any more of my money until you fix ....etc" it will still not change anything. They will just move on to another customer.

I don't agree with this statement. In my eyes, BFC has responded to the cries of the unwashed more so than they needed to and definitely more than most developers/ publishers. While I may not appreciate the present game setting I do appreciate all the hard work they are putting into cleaning up this re-vamped system. For example, my understanding was that the original plan was to get away from the 'cherry picking' units aspect of the original CMx1 but unit selection looks like it is back in for CMx2, Normady....yeah!!!

BFC can only do what they want and what they have budget to do. Dont expect miracles

Why the feck not? I think what they have done so far is pretty impressive and I expect more of the same. If only those sackless slackers would spend less time sleeping they might get some work done. Sheesh, that's like 8 hours a day without any progress.

[SgtMuhammed]

I don't think Charles ever sleeps. Updates tend to come any time of the day, night, or early morning. Steve must be pouring Red Bull in his jar.

[MikeyD]

The complaints about the buildings may have a lot to do with the region. Square, flat-topped, concrete, cinder block or mud brick. You're not going to get gabled roofs and cedar shingles in the eastern Syrian desert. As it stands, have you counted up the combinations of facades, roof types, building sizes, floors, trim & mouldings, window configurations and balcony types in the editor? If you're complaining about 'Lego' buildings blame the scenario designer. Heck, 6 months ago I built a map of a suburban Houston TX shopping mall next to a 4 lane highway! Something like 96 separate structures linked together with a 6 story upscale 'anchor store' in the center with acres of asphalt parking lot surrounding it.

[c3k]

As long as the tree damage model continues to be updated, I will not despair...

Ken

[Scipio]

In fact, if you compare CMSF (at the level of the upcoming v1.10 - where, by the way, the tree damage model has been improved) to some games out there that are made at HUGELY bigger budgets, it can stand its own quite easily. As long at least as you compare apples to apples.

Heh, when was the last time you fired up a CMx1 game?

That's some time ago, but hey, I'm a CM1 veteran with more than six years of experience . There's no water or bridges in CMSF (Syria has a lot of both). No important changes on the roads. Walls are pretty the same, and they look like they are a half meter thick - no wonder that tanks can't break them. Terrain is still organized/drawn in tiles. Nothing on the terrain can burn anymore. Yeah, there are more polygons, the textures are better, too, and there are some new doodads - but hey, that's the least to expect. A pain in the a... is also that the graphics are reloaded frequently, for whatever reason.

BTW, don't take me wrong. If I wouldn't love the game, I wouldn't waste my energy here . But the look of CMSF doesn't even match up with...Sudden Strike, as for example. Not really apples compared with apples, but to 75% (if we keep out the gameplay).

[Battlefront.com]

Our problem has always been balancing game and graphics in terms of how much each eats into our very limited development calendar. It really boils down to decisions like "would you like us to spend a month making a new QB system and a week making minor graphics improvements, or would you rather us spend a month making a lot of graphics improvements and a week making minor tweaks to the existing QB system?"

There are good arguments for putting a month into both, of course, but that's not a choice we can afford to make unless we cut out other things. In other words, we have a limited amount of time we can put into a particular game and if we favor one thing then we are by definition not favoring something else. That's because the list of total things people want us to do would probably take 10 years to complete! Therefore, it's clear that in any given game release we can only cover a fraction of what people would like us to. For that matter, only a fraction of what we would like to put in!

Over time we will make improvements to the graphics and other "atmospheric" elements. Version 1.10, in fact, has several such enhancements. More will be seen/heard in Normandy, more after that. However, for Normandy we are favoring graphics improvements that improve game performance because we want you guys to be able to have large and densely packed maps with reasonable framerates. These sorts of improvements might not change the overall look of the game, but they take significant time to implement none-the-less

Oh, and lastly one must remember that we're always going to be at a graphical disadvantage compared to the average FPS type game because of various factors. The biggest is that in order to have a flexible map editor we have to generics the terrain far more than what can be done with maps hand made by 3D and 2D artists. The other major factor is game performance. We'll never have the sorts of shortcuts and what not that FPS games have because of the major differences in the gameplay between wargames and FPS.

Bottomline... things will get better over time, but not at the expense of gameplay features that we feel are far more important. As has been stated already, in the end its the gameplay that matters the most. Therefore, gameplay will always remain proportionally more important to us than the graphics, even though graphics are obviously far more important to us now with CMx2 than they were with CMx1.

Steve

[Mord]

I've been wondering if some of these damage textures could be left up to us...I imagine it wouldn't be much difference coding wise though...as far as the work load? But I doubt any of us would complain about being able to make/create textures for opened slots...kinda like the winter vehicles in CMBO...could take some heat off Dan and the guys.

I'd be happy to see building damage like we have in CMBB...building facades get more and more crappy looking as they are wailed on (until the wall disappears like we have now). I think what there were three textures? Good, damaged, and major damage in CMBB? That'd be suitable.

I don't expect to have damage like they show in other games exactly because of the effects it would have on the editor...I've seen what other game companies call "editors" and it takes a friggin' PHD in CAD just to make a map. I like what we have now...it's the best game editor I have ever seen.

I think you guys will find a happy medium...but please consider, if the coding isn't a major PIA...the community could always fill in the blanks, texture wise.

Mord.

[RichyG]

I've seen the community practically create all the graphics to a game before now... for those who don't know, Total Extreme Warfare series and the WMMA series by grey dog software were done in this way. The community contributed there around 90% of the graphical work there (I did the belt renders for WMMA for example).

The main discussion has been on getting damage to look more realistic and this could easilly be improved by setting up more phases of damage for the walls using both textures and models.

One thing I would suggest for BFC team do is look into replacing their textures from being bitmaps to a mipmap filetype such as DDS. performance would improve drastically and there could be a budget for more detailed textures overall in the close up shots.

Someone mentioned about "floating maps"? This is a huge task to overcome... most games will prevent such occurances by restricting camera movement or breaking the view by presenting a physical horizon. With CM's style of play this is an uneasy task to overcome... you literally have to treat it as a "tabletop" wargame situation and accept it.

[panzermartin]

The floating map should go sometime in the future. TOW has done it quite well, without sacrificing view angles and framerates(TOW graphics are actually really pretty but sounds are synth crap compared to the excellent CMSF audios). CMSF graphics are visually pleasing in their own "clean cut" way. I think some more overlay decal textures can do miracles, in a way to avoid multiplying the same dirt pattern for instance floor after floor.

I still remember how magnificent CMBO looked with Magua's Normandy mod. The game looked absolutely beautiful without the add of a single polygon. So I guess the solution is propably not in more polygons, but in key color combinatons and smart use of texture here and there. Imagine how much more atmospheric would a mid east building show with say a huge worn out propaganda portrait painted on its side, or graffiti/ ads etc. If a decal feature was somehow imlemented the community could do wonders with this kind of stuff. So far, the custom nature of building makes any texture modding look a bit weird.

I also find some tree graphics a bit disapponting. I mean, we only get one Palm tree iirc, same height, same type, its like those rows they plant in beach side roads. Some others like olive trees (?) are really nice though.

[The_Red_Rage]

Yeah +1 on giving modding community more freedom with visual aspect of the game. While CMSF doesn't seem to attract as many modders, my CMBB/CMBO/CMAK mod folders were over a gig each with some truly amazing work there. Modders transformed an ugly duckling with amazing gameplay into a pretty atmospheric simulation with amazing gameplay (sorry BFC, but unmodded CMBB was quite ugly:))

Possibility for adding layered textures for basic damage representation would be exellent. If such possibility was presented, I'm sure we'd have 10 damage packs released within a week

[Scipio]

Our problem has always been balancing game and graphics in terms of how much each eats into our very limited development calendar. ...

Bottomline... things will get better over time, but not at the expense of gameplay features that we feel are far more important. As has been stated already, in the end its the gameplay that matters the most. Therefore, gameplay will always remain proportionally more important to us than the graphics, even though graphics are obviously far more important to us now with CMx2 than they were with CMx1.

Steve

I fully understand and agree. But obviously I'm not the only one who thinks that the key to your problem is to give the community more freedom to mod the game. You once said something like 'you don't want people to make everything out of the game'. (IIRC). That sound like some kind of Microsoft policy. What do you fear? Even if a full conversion of the map would turn Syria into a temperate setting, for example, do you think that you loose a single customer? I doubt that.

[LongLeftFlank]

One more vote here for some blank 2D "decals" and 3D solid objects we can mod up. Even some dupes of existing objects would be nice... there's only so much we can do with the spare park benches and trash bins.

[Mord]

I fully understand and agree. But obviously I'm not the only one who thinks that the key to your problem is to give the community more freedom to mod the game. You once said something like 'you don't want people to make everything out of the game'. (IIRC). That sound like some kind of Microsoft policy. What do you fear? Even if a full conversion of the map would turn Syria into a temperate setting, for example, do you think that you loose a single customer? I doubt that.

Well there's modding textures and there's screwing with the code. They've always been pretty clear on how they feel about people adding new models and manipulating code and I gotta say I agree...not only does it fracture the community into a million pieces, you have the huge potential for ahistorical uber weapons and units. Not to mention they might wanna do some of the stuff people would mod and it would interfere with their plans. It's an old argument on here that's been explained to death. Basically it's the wrong road to travel. I think manipulating textures and sounds are good enough.

Mord.

[RichyG]

The fear is BF don't want to lose out on expansion packs... basically if they'd openedly allowed the introduction of full modding then we'd already have both a marines module and british pack made by the community...

I think if BF made more sales off the original games release then these such aspects would not be such an issue.

Now over with the totalwar series, Rome Total war was not initially capable of accepting new models since no one could use their file type but within a few months someone had cracked it and made an import/export tool for 3ds max and voila! the community could do all sorts! In the end, Creative Assembly buckled and let out their own exporters etc. anyway.

reskinning is not enough as you can't really do anything creative. The totalwar games managed to still release addon packs despite there already being a huge load of community projects. They mainly made their mark on being to hardcode aspects of the game meaning that new features were the real reason for the expansion, NOT the art work!

Plus, the decal idea is a good one but I think the larger scale of things needs to be concentrated on first such as the suggested damages etc. would add plenty to the game.

[Jak170]

I agree and think that BF could increase customer interest time by allowing more modding to occur such as models and a few basic gameplay things such as health or whatnot. Theres a lot you can do with freedom over models. However, I really like SF as it is with a few texture mods and sound mods (the m4 was kinda weak sounding).

Having a relatively medium end laptop, i randomly have wierd problems with the game drawing textures and then redrawing them when i haven't moved my screen. Its annoying but it happens on pretty low graphics settings. However, the biggest concerns for me (and any other lower end player) are the buildings. I can barely make it through a game in the city without experiancing really low framerates even when there are no troops. ITs annoying cuz i like city battles quite a bit.

Previously mentiones were 3 different textures for the buildings to indicate damage and I think that is a great idea. Its simple ( i think) and it adds a whole lot of better looks when playing. I also think that roads should be improved a little and a bit more water added to the game although it doesn't need to look like RA3 water.

One of the major concerns i have is with quick battle. Although its quite interesting, i want to have way more control over what map i play, how many units there are, and most importantly, what type of units. If maybe there were a new tab called Custom Games that allows this, i think some people would like it alot. So I really think investing a month into a new QB setup is a little more important than the textures cuz deep inside, its the gaming that counts, not the visuals. SF has visuals that satisfy me already as long as therea re a few mods out there with cool new textures such as the US Ragtag mod.

Yea. soo. thats my 2 cents

[Scipio]

Well there's modding textures and there's screwing with the code. They've always been pretty clear on how they feel about people adding new models and manipulating code and I gotta say I agree...not only does it fracture the community into a million pieces, you have the huge potential for ahistorical uber weapons and units. Not to mention they might wanna do some of the stuff people would mod and it would interfere with their plans. It's an old argument on here that's been explained to death. Basically it's the wrong road to travel. I think manipulating textures and sounds are good enough.

Mord.

That sounds like I'm asking to open the gates to hell . Indeed I agree to your post! But I'm not talking about manipulating the gamecode by third parties! I'm also not talking about adding new units or manipulate existing units without control of BFC (see below).

But what about manipulating terrain models, damage models, model animations? New buildings, new special effects and other fancy stuff? There are many things that could be done by the community. Technically is nearly everything possible; and BFC could still keep control about key features. It's even possible to avoid a splitt of the community. Critical things like new FX or new buildings can be proofed and officially released by BFC. I bet they would even find people who are happy to do this for them for free.

In other words - say goodbye to the Microsoft policy, and say hello to the Linux policy.

[Paper Tiger]

While I'll confess that I do really miss damaged (and burning) buildings, I'd have to say that I think that the current state of the graphics in the game are really excellent already. I play with all the graphics settings maxxed out with shadows enabled and when I 'follow' one of my units as it performs it's actions on the map, I am occassionally blown away by the beauty of the graphics.

Regarding modding, I think BFC have already stated their reasons for not letting the community mod the models VERY clearly a number of times before. Whether you agree with them or not, you have to respect their decision as it's their product and they want to make as much money out of it as possible. Even if every single person who visited this site signed a petition for this, they still wouldn't change their minds.