Battlefront.com Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 In the recent blog post looking back 10 years, Martin (Moon) used a screenshot from a bit later on. Here, for your to ponder and laugh at, are screenshots from January 1998 and March 1999 respectfully: Enjoy Steve P.S. sorry for the delay! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 God..glad you had the courage to go past this stage Still cute though 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cid250 Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 That ftp, seems to not work for me, can somebody host it on www.tynipic.com or something? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 9, 2009 Author Share Posted February 9, 2009 Should be all set now. We had to change some server end stuff so that I can toss images up in HTML. We recently closed down the old section of the server I used to use for stuff like this. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt. Ryan Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Whose grass were you smoking? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Truth be told, there is a dramatic improvement between the first screen shot and the second one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 And to further tell the truth, the first screenshot is a lot prettier than the first set I remember seeing. In those, the GI figures were bigger than the houses. They were truly ghastly. I think Steve might have been a bit miffed at me when I posted that they were uglier than a warthog! :D Things are much better in the graphics department now. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymaxx Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 And to further tell the truth, the first screenshot is a lot prettier than the first set I remember seeing. This one? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Pure art..Picasso would be jealous 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Then there was this version. The terrain looked great at that point, but they had to ditch it because it caused a glitch that filled the sky with moons. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinkins Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 But's lets not focus just on graphics. It was the 3D - WEGO - replay that provided the discontinuity. If it were only graphics why is the CMBO forum still alive and kicking? With they said .. what was the BIG breakthrough from a coding point of view. Was it really graphics related or game play related? Kevin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 ASL Veteran, Truth be told, there is a dramatic improvement between the first screen shot and the second one. No accident there The first screenshot shows the short lived hex based map system with unflattering "programmer art". The second shot shows a mix of mockup and what would become final artwork on the first (hardcoded) square tile based map. We moved from the hex to tile system specifically because we thought that graphically it was the best thing to do as well as a much better platform for the game itself. We had hardly begun putting gamecode into the hex environment before we realized that hexes are a real liability for tactical simulation even though at higher levels hexes can actually be superior to tiles. Michael Emrys , And to further tell the truth, the first screenshot is a lot prettier than the first set I remember seeing. In those, the GI figures were bigger than the houses. They were truly ghastly. I think Steve might have been a bit miffed at me when I posted that they were uglier than a warthog! Ah, happy days Yeah, we knew the graphics weren't great, but it was the best we could do on such a limited budget. We got away with it once simply because 3D hardware wasn't very good and we were the first to fully push wargaming into it. I don't think we would have got away with what we released even a year later than we did. Plus, the Beta Demo came out so long before the game a LOT of people knew the gameplay was there even if the graphics were so-so. Unfortunately for us game developers, the bar is always on the rise! Oh, and notice the framerate count in the 2nd screenshot. Barely 40 fps on a nearly perfectly flat map that was IIRC no bigger than 800x800m with hardly any terrain or units to speak of! I think a single tank in CM:SF has more polygons than are shown in that entire screenshot. kevinkins, In our opinion CMBO was a success because of the graphics first, gameplay second. (clarification - the graphics got us the attention necessary for people to notice there was a Hell of a great game in there as well. If were just another 2D "chit" style game we'd not likely be here today even if the rest of the game was nearly identical) As ugly as the graphics are by today's standards (obviously the final release of CMBO was MUCH better than these shots ) they weren't too bad by 1999 standards. In fact, there wasn't much to compare CMBO to, at the time, because hardly any games had dared to simulate the outside world. So in a sense the graphics weren't cutting edge for 3D gaming in general, but for wargames it was a huge leap ahead. Up until then wargames were still predominantly 2D computer representations of cardboard chits (Steel Panthers and Close Combat the big exceptions). Although the graphics were knocked at the time, and they definitely were, people were able to keep their criticism in check (for the most part) because the overall experience was so novel. If CMBO had been nothing more than rock-paper-scissors game, like Panzer General, in 3D I'm not sure we'd have survived to make a second game and beyond. Mediocre to poor graphics coupled with a fairly simplistic design would not have gone over very well IMHO. Like I said before, we had good timing with a great product. Good thing too... otherwise you'd be reminiscing about CMBO on some other wargame website and wondering what ever happened to us and why we never made a sequel Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 This one? Ah yes. Now you know what inspired me to rise to such heights of poetic eloquence. :D:D Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Then there was this version. The terrain looked great at that point, but they had to ditch it because it caused a glitch that filled the sky with moons. Actually, they never ditched it. It's just been put on hold until Space Lobsters of Doom comes out. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Although the graphics were knocked at the time, and they definitely were, people were able to keep their criticism in check (for the most part) because the overall experience was so novel. If CMBO had been nothing more than rock-paper-scissors game, like Panzer General, in 3D I'm not sure we'd have survived to make a second game and beyond. Mediocre to poor graphics coupled with a fairly simplistic design would not have gone over very well IMHO. I would agree with you there. I recall dragging my heels when you were all talking about doing the game in 3D and being able to view the action from different angles and altitudes. I swore that I would never play it from any angle but the directly overhead one. Then I played the demo and immediately changed my mind. I did sometimes use the overhead view as it was occasionally handy in precisely placing units at the start or placing waypoints. But mostly I think I used view #3, I think it was. And usually before the start of the game, I'd do an on-foot recce of the map in view #1 so I could work out where dead ground was, etc. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 I swore that I would never play it from any angle but the directly overhead one. Ah... you were one of those, were you? My GOD there were a lot of people saying that at first. It's not surprising since even I had to be convinced during our first serious conversation on now famous night at our local watering hole. That's where the cocktail napkin came into play, because Charles had to explain the benefits of a 3D environment over a 2D one to me. That in turn required some drawing. Up until then I was like most wargamers... I thought 3D was an unnecessary complication. Partly, I think, because I was primarily an operational (e.g. Kampfgruppe, etc.) and strategic level (e.g. War in Russia) wargamer at the time. Tactical level games (e.g. Steel Panthers and Close Combat) were exceptions for me. 3D for anything over tactical, at the time, was really not a good idea since the technology was so primitive and the need to use it relatively small. Fortunately Charles sold me on the idea before he had written the first line of code. Boy I'm glad I didn't manage to talk him out of it Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Coming from Steel Panthers and Close Combat, I fell instantly in love with the 3d aspects of the beta demo. A big problem with SP (especially Modern Battles with longer range weaponry) was that a lot of the time you were looking at your or enemy's units close by, but you couldn't see both a tank and its target at that level. Meanwhile if you zoomed out enough to see the big picture, you couldn't tell a T-34 from a cheese cake. Enter Combat Mission, and you could position the camera BEHIND your tanks and see what they saw, like where to move to have that house block that Tiger's LOS. To me that was revolutionary! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theFightingSeabee Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 When I first fired up the demo in 2000, I saw something that made me smile. It was the first shot from a sherman tank where I was behind the tank. I actually SAW the round shoot across the map with a realistic trajectory! Then the detailed hits made me realize in an instant that it was more than Combat! on the Atari. I was hooked, bought it, and have been a fan ever since. I've owned 2 copies of all 3. I had the same reaction the first time I played the cmsf demo. Makes me wonder what the next 10 years will bring... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orwell Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I can't decide whether great advances have been made, or after riding the bandwagon to the top of the '98 hill, you fell out and just grabbed onto a controller flailing out the back and held on for dear profits. Either way, I hope you see another 10. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flanker15 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 This one? Ahhhhhhh WHY?! Nice fire though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaneO Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I came at it from a tabletop wargaming background, and apart from the huge amount of number-crunching being done for me by the computer, far more than is practical to attempt with dice and tables, what really got me was the ability to get down there and put your virtual eye behind your units, checking line of sight and all that, just like on the tabletop but with far more immersive environments. I haven't done much tabletop wargaming now in quite a number of years, because I like Combat Mission better. Damnit! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homo ferricus Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Ahhhhhhh WHY?! Nice fire though. That tank looks like it got knocked out via a case of shiny-orange-mountainrange-instantly-erupts-from-the-ground-beneath-you... itis. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 That first shot looks a lot like Map 3. And yeah, I remember seeing the writeup on what you guys were doing in one of the computer gaming magazines and hoping that you would do it right. Thanks; you did. Regards, Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinkins Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Hey Steve thanks for the response. By graphics I really meant the skins not the 3D environment. I read that a big breakthrough came over a few cocktails and napkins - nice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.