I wanna turn based game with "RTS animation"

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

I wanna turn based game with "RTS animation"

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> I wanna turn based game with "RTS animation"

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

I wanna turn based game with "RTS animation" - 2/19/2003 10:56:47 PM

Halberdier

Posts: 27
Joined: 2/19/2003
Status: offline

Please developers of Matrix!!!

Make the same Panzer general II as a turn based game ,but with "RTS animation".

it is possible because the "result" of any combat can be done at the final of the turn. For example, In the panzer general II you can see only three finals:

1-destroy
2-retreat
3-losses

You do not need for the next desicion of each unit the result of the odd. Only at the end of turn for all units. In middle of combat you can add fog and fire as a signal of each unit attacker or defender. And the rest of the game only "RTS animation".

why not? .

Now, I only see out there a lot of garbage in animations of turn based games.

Post #: 1

- 2/20/2003 1:57:31 AM

Charles2222

Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

Halberdier: You've touched on something that was just on my mind late yesterday, and I was hoping it would be possible for CL. I was hoping, like in CIV3, you could have at least little legs moving underneath the men as they made their way from one hex to the other. While it's probably not in the works for that game, it does add some more semi-realism. I wouldn't even go as far as to have graphics for each unit in combat, like in CIV3, but that would be an added dimension as well. As slow as CIV3 can be at times though, this animated movement on a turn-based game might not be such a hot idea. If only we knew how much that movement slows things on CIV3 and whether the CL amount of units would come close to the number moving in CIV3.

(in reply to Halberdier)

Post #: 2

- 2/20/2003 6:59:17 PM

Halberdier

Posts: 27
Joined: 2/19/2003
Status: offline

:) Yes Charles,and for a Turn Based-WW2 is more simple than this:

You need at least "continuous animation" of THE COMBAT , for example: continuous shoot of the firearms along the turn, machine guns,artillery,tanks,rifles. And the smoke and fire over the targets. But those effects must be really great and permanent along the turn.

example of the infantry in combat: stand up and fire and at the same time down for cover, use a mortar, use a machine gun, use a grenades,etc. And all action in the same hex!!

You do not need a "continuous animation" of the MOVEMENT, for example: legs moving of infantry, if that make the game slow.

I return to the Panzer General 1: what have make this a great game in 1994 ? the fantastic graphics (for 1994) or the rules?.

Try to make a RTS with this TBS graphics:

[url]www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/zones/reviews/pc/apr99/toawbp02.jpg[/url]

you think that you will sell a RTS game thus?

now see this RTS graphics:

http://www.cdv-blitzkrieg.de/download/blitzkrieg-e.ram

If that would be a effect of turn based game. How many seconds you would take to buy this ?

:)

(in reply to Halberdier)

Post #: 3

- 2/20/2003 9:02:59 PM

Charles2222

Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

Halberdier: I just thought about another problem here; vision. First of all I don't know how close CL will let you get, but SPWW2 let's you get closer then SPWAW, and I can see how little legs moving may not be feasible, and only would look right at the most magnified level. I thought, also, that East Front had animation. There is a problem, somewhat of a major one really, and that is, that the angle isn't proper to show much movement. CIV3 and EF both had what is perhaps 45 degree angles. With the direct overhead approach the most you could show would be little shoes coming out, and there may not be space considering there's so many figures in the hex, which, brings up another problem. Even in EF, the figures were somewhat limited maybe 3 or 4 men or 1 vehicle. Those 3 or 4 men take about the amount of space of the 10 or so men in an overhead CL/SPWW2/SPWAW. One last problem with overhead if the vehicles. SInce it is overhead, the only discernible movement would be turret and dust being raised.

So it looks like it boils down to this. Would you rather have 10 or so men in a hex not legging it between hexes, or have 3 or 4 with movement, realizing that the option with movement may take more memory?

I know you're sort of talking about something else, but it sounds as though while what you're wanting may be feasible, it sounds as though CA is more the ticket for that sort of thing. I never played Panzer General, so I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. The CIV3 battles are sort of fun to watch, but then again to make it CL-based would be too take away the ten or so men and make them into one man, something I'm not entirely sure I'd be at home with. Both are nice, but if this game is trying more to appeal to wargamers, then wargamers may prefer 10 stiff men, to one man moving and representing them.

It is kind of unrealistic anyway, isn't it? Imagine as in CIV3, a spearman in CIV3's case, pokes his spear out against a tank as against any other object he fights. Imagine too a sniper getting out and firing a single shot while the Tiger fires all it's guns. It just wouldn't happen, and perhaps the worst of it id the distance problem. In CIV3, it's adajacent hexes in battle, but in CL you'd have in many cases great seperation. What do you do, without looking silly, when the Tiger is 20 hexes fromt he sniper and opens fire on it? Does the sniper fire back as normal and look very silly? If he throws a grenade, he can't do that, because that would be silly. It may be that only when you have borders clashing that you can have both sides doing something. Sure I know the exception is aircraft for example, but I would suppose in most cases, except AA perhaps, the target would just stand there and not assume a battle routine. One of the dangers of putting turn-based with some sort of animation in battles is you run into silly situations which detract from it somewhat, such as trucks 'battling' it out with panzers. Even ignoring that, waht do you do when a unit would use completely different weapons against a different object? You could see how complicated that could get, and what's more, what would they do if I selected theri specific weapon to use? What if I got them to use grenades only for assault, and they animated into firing rifles? It seems it would be a massive work to get each unit to animate only with the weapon or weapons chosen, in order to get arounf the sometimes silliness of them firing a weapon you wouldn't even dream if them using in the case of single script animations.

Maybe something can be animated in some way, to make things more appealing, but I'm not sure your idea, or my variant of it, is really that desireable.

It would be interesting to here other opinions about this.

(in reply to Halberdier)

Post #: 4

- 2/21/2003 4:10:38 AM

Halberdier

Posts: 27
Joined: 2/19/2003
Status: offline

excuseme Charles: what is "CL" ? .

""a unit would use completely different weapons against a different object""

That's not must be a problem in Panzer general II. Because you can use different icons for explain different actions over different targets.

For example you can put a infantry in a truck (the icon infantry change for icon truck). And for the same mechanism you could change the icon "infantry rifles" for the icon "infantry bazooka", or anything else, etc ,etc ,etc ...why not?

...maybe in SPWW is possible too? sorry I do not play SP :( . The main reason is the "Up vision" of the game. I prefer 45� as CIV or Panzer 2.

But for the moment , a difference with Steel panthers ,we do not know the code of the game :( , and only can make a minor changes in the game....

...I request to Matrix only the code of the part of the graphics- animation of the Panzer general II :D for the Panzer Community if that is possible :)

And I make a more general question for the developers of Matrix:

How many "visual animations" must be have a Turn based game now , on 2003 ? and I answer me :) = At least the same as RTS games.

(in reply to Halberdier)

Post #: 5

- 2/21/2003 4:25:33 AM

Charles2222

Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

CL (Combat Leader) is the up and coming SP-type game that this company is currently programming, which has the top-down view. I'm quite sure it's developed enough to where they wouldn't want to go 45 degrees just for better animation. Who knows if they can add animation not already there to it? I've never seen anybody comment on this board as to whether or not the combat routines visuals of CL will be much better than SPWAW or not, though I'd imagine that other than the units and terrain looking better as we already know, the combat routine visuals would at least be marginally improved.

(in reply to Halberdier)

Post #: 6

- 2/21/2003 4:42:43 AM

Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline

I am seriously confused here.

How can a "turn based game" have "RTS animations"?.

I mean in a turn based game, if I tell my tank to enter a hex from an adjacent hex, sure it can go there with minor animations and minor sound effects.
If I tell it to engage a target, sure it can move and fire its weapons with minor animations.
No big deal there, it's already being done.

But somehow I am not sure this is what you are asking for.

In atypical RTS games, the units run around and execute all manner of animations, but there is no "turn" in the process.
If you give them no commands, they might manifest a default animation, and they might even exhibit a responsive action (guess it depends on the game eh).

At the moment, it sounds like what you want is a wego execution of a turn. Complete with simultaneous acting animations of the event.
Most turn based games are curently predominantly Igo Yougo based designs though.

There are some designs out there though, that employ a process where you issue commands of a fairly comprehensive sort, then enact the command to execute, and the process begins, in live mode.
The units can be given updated parameters, but I think once live mode begins, it stays that way. There are no "turns" per se in these games.
The most recent example of this process I know of is Airborne Assault on sale through Battlefront.

Close Assault might also turn out to be a game of similar design features.
Combat Leader though, will basically be a turn based game in the same mold as Steel Panthers (as some people enjoy games made that way, me being one of those type of gamers).

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Halberdier)

Post #: 7

- 2/21/2003 6:21:33 AM

Halberdier

Posts: 27
Joined: 2/19/2003
Status: offline

Ok , I see the screenshoot ...mumm...and I feel that I came back to.... 1995. That is what I tried to say. :(

We are in 2003: with a RTS games out there ... with fantastic animations out there . A new game must have equal animations at least. I think.

""If you give them no commands, they might manifest a default animation""
and why not the same for a turn based game??

and after you done your "command orders": Why not an artillery fire all the time along the turn?? ...for example.

I would say to developers of Matrix: take a look all the details of the "RTS animations" ,and if you need: copy! ,or if you can: improve!, for a new Turn Based game!. We are in 2003.

:) As a guy say about a girl : we all say that we want a good person and intelligent girl.... but , we make the election by our eyes :)

(in reply to Halberdier)

Post #: 8

- 2/21/2003 8:49:36 AM

Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline

Sincere apologies, this is not meant to give offense (as I fully realise that the whole world does not speak english), but where do you hail from Halberdier?

I ask, because your argument is not helped by your comments in that they are not very clear (is english your mother tongue? I ask, because hey, I have friends, english speaking friends, and they can't string words together to save their skin :))

""If you give them no commands, they might manifest a default animation""
and why not the same for a turn based game??

Ok, you want animations for a turn based game? (which is an odd statement, because they already have them). You want Default animations correct? What specifically are you requesting? Because while you can say you hate what we have now (not sure why), you are not stating exactly what it is you wish to replace them.

and after you done your "command orders": Why not an artillery fire all the time along the turn?? ...for example

What is the point of your request? Are you saying you want artillery fire to resolve throughtout the turn? It is already doing that in Steel Panthers eh. Look at the game menu, you can reference your artillery missions and actually know when the rounds will arrive on target. They arrive at varying portions of the turn, hence not all at once, but staggered (I often forget to check the darned stuff and walk through my own missions hehe.

Do you know per chance the term "wego" by the way? Combat Mission is a wego game. Steel Panthers is a I go You Go game. Both are turn based, and both are knee deep in animations already.

As we speak, it sounds like you are wanting the game to insist on animations simply to please the eyes. Tanks etc. with animations that just impart cosmetic fluff I don't need.

Not to mention I just bashed my way through a video card upgrade just to barely be able to play Combat Leader. I expect a lot out of that game, but I would not be buying it just to get some pretty animations.

I just got Century of Warfare in the mail today eh. I am one happy gamer. Oh it's the latest compilation of the game that is featured in that screen shot by the way. The CD cost me 80 bucks (Canadian). The fact the base game hails from 95 means zip zero nadda.
If the game was made today I would not think any more of it or any less of it.

ASL is a board game that hails from the 70's originally eh. It is still considered to be the pinnacle of boards games of that genre by most board gamers. I have seen numerous valiant attempts to beat it, and none have accomplished anything yet.

I am looking forward to a clear concise definition of specifically what it is you are wishing to see in these missing animations.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Halberdier)

Post #: 9

- 2/21/2003 8:34:50 PM

Charles2222

Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

While I can't speak for Halberdier, what I've been discussing was somewhat different from his. I was speaking of some manner to try to make the units not look stiff basically. When SPWAW moves a unit, they slide as though they travel on air. Not devastatingly bad by any means, but there's no motion to make the units look a little more alive, which would give something of an RTS feel. Earlier, I had forgot to mention East Front and it's motion of units traveling. Why? Firstly because it's been quite a while since I played it, but more importantly as it turns out, because it's a worser example than CIV3.

CIV3 had motion not only when traveling, but when a fight breaks out, for both sides, with the exception of long range fire. As well, they even have motion for when they unit is idle. For CL, even though it is top-down, to simulate idle motion a tank turret could sway a little and the men could that or something else (turn right and left). CIV3 has considerably more motion than East Front had.

I tried to explain earlier, that with fights in CL often breaking out at distances other than adjacently, it's a lot more difficult problem. Add to that the problem of which weapon they're firing. It seems like the best CL could do in that regard, without getting overly complex, would be to have cannon fire with some sort of whoosh sort of object (for lack of a better terminology) being propelled, whilst their small arms fire would be smaller and slower. The current SPWAW, of all fire looking like a line coming out of the tank is definitely ancient and I'd hope that has been dealt with.

(in reply to Halberdier)

Post #: 10

- 2/22/2003 5:19:35 AM

Halberdier

Posts: 27
Joined: 2/19/2003
Status: offline

Les the Sarge 9-1

Hope you understand me :) . And I'm from Spain if you want to know :D

""I am looking forward to a clear concise definition of specifically what it is you are wishing to see in these missing animations.""

I hope the developers take in mind what I tried to say:

1- Add a View of 45� too (similar of Panzer general II)
(I do not think nobody must to change a graphic card for this)

2- A future Turn based game must to have a better animation , or at least equal , than the new "Blitzkrieg" make by CDV. There is not reason for to be worst.

This is in a few words that I think.

mumm... please , everyone have their point of view about the animations , I do not want discuss nobody . The sell have the last word. You know.

[URL=http://www.cdv-blitzkrieg.de/download/blitzkrieg-e.ram]Blitzkrieg trailer[/URL]

But please, that the fox said, is not a reason...

"""...It was a very hot and sunny afternoon. A fox, which had been hunting the whole day, was very thirsty.

"How I wish there was some water," the fox thought to himself.

Just then, he saw bunches of fat and juicy grapes hanging from a vine above his head. The grapes looked ripe and ready to burst with juice.

"Oh, my! Oh, my!" the fox said as his mouth began to water. "Sweet grape juice, quench my thirst!"

The fox stood on tiptoe and stretched as high as he could, but the grapes were out of his reach.
...
"What a fool I am!" said the fox furiously: "These grapes are sour and not fit for eating. Why would I want them anyway?" ;)

(in reply to Halberdier)

Post #: 11

Combat Mission:Berlin to Barbarossa - 2/22/2003 11:06:38 PM

SWODOG

Posts: 37
Joined: 5/9/2002
From: Atlanta, Georgia
Status: offline

Here's a great game that's turn based but has awesome grahics/animations. CM:Beyond Overlord and CM:Berlin to Barbarossa. visit: [url]WWW.Battlefront.Com[/url] They are published by another company that like Matirx takes its games seriously and provides awesome support after they released. Both CM games have excellent Mod support as well.

_____________________________

Don't worry about the mice when the elephants are stomping on your head...

(in reply to Halberdier)

Post #: 12

- 2/23/2003 5:01:02 AM

Marc von Martial

Posts: 10875
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Bonn, Germany
Status: offline

[QUOTE]1- Add a View of 45� too (similar of Panzer general II)
(I do not think nobody must to change a graphic card for this)

2- A future Turn based game must to have a better animation , or at least equal , than the new "Blitzkrieg" make by CDV. There is not reason for to be worst.[/QUOTE]

The 45� (or isometric as it�s called) view is out of question for real judging of terrain and LOS. Games like Blitzkrieg or SuddenStrike do not have the "wargame claim" as games like Steel Panthers or upcoming CL. In games with isometric view it is almost impossible to plan battles like they�re actually planned on military maps. Although we put stress on eye candy it�s still the main goal to provide a real "realistic" wargame instead of a totally eye pleasing game.

Animations, special effects and all the other nice stuff i(like weather effects, smoke etc. etc.) will be in CL for example but in a view that makes actually sense for advanced wargaming.

I�m , obviously as it�s my job as art director, am totally for all the eye candy we can put in, still it�s gameplay, historical accuracy, replayability and grog proffness that makes a wargame and not isometric view ;).

CMBO or CMBB have proofed that turn based wargames can go 3D, however at a larger scale 3D looses it value even there, since you mostly end up in planning bigger scale tactics and moves in "2D top down" view, like on a real map ;). 3D has the big advantage in judging terrain from different spots, 2D top down has it�s advantage in planing moves and aplying tactics, 45� or isometric view fails in both. It looks nice, I admit that.

_____________________________

Marc von Martial
instagram stream

(in reply to Halberdier)

Post #: 13

- 2/23/2003 8:16:33 AM

Halberdier

Posts: 27
Joined: 2/19/2003
Status: offline

Thank you very much for your answer Mr Schwanebeck.

I do not agree with your point of view about the "realism" of the 2D vs "isometric" Maps:

If in a "military plans" you must to use Map 2D it is because a soldiers must to use "paper" for practical necessity !!. I think . Or what? ...But all of us have a computer in our house ( we do not walk with the computer along the battle camp ). ;)

Mumm...but I see that as the CL is a Steel panthers "saga" maybe this cause Fear to the change of point of vision. That is understandable .

In this case , for this "minority", I do not know if it's possible a "graphic editor" for the units (soldiers,tanks etc) and terrain (houses,etc) in your game...thinking in the "isometric" people :). Maybe? :)

Thanks another time.

Pedro

[IMG]http://leonpg2.bip.ru/pic/zitadel.gif[/IMG]
PS this is from an old game Panzer general II
http://pub28.ezboard.com/bbuildersparadise

(in reply to Halberdier)

Post #: 14

- 2/23/2003 8:19:38 PM

Marc von Martial

Posts: 10875
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Bonn, Germany
Status: offline

[QUOTE]If in a "military plans" you must to use Map 2D it is because a soldiers must to use "paper" for practical necessity !!. I think . Or what? ...But all of us have a computer in our house ( we do not walk with the computer along the battle camp ). [/QUOTE]

Even digitalized maps are still 2D, when incorporated in a GIS system you can grab 3D data from them. I have yet too see a digital map system that is either not fully 2D or fully 3D and works regarding to judge terrain and terrain values in a realistic and convincing way (Believe me my second job is dealing with a lot of map and GIS data, that both in 2D and 3D ;) ). The isometric view is a hybrid of both, failing in a good presentation of terrain and does not give information about terrain characteristics such as height in a reasonable way good enough for an advanced wargame. I�d rather go fully 3D then isometric.

I know most (if not all) of the isometric titles and played them too, such as the Campaign Series too. The screenshot below doesn�t provide me with a good judgment on LOS neither do I see advanced terrain feature such as slopes and hills.

[QUOTE]Mumm...but I see that as the CL is a Steel panthers "saga" maybe this cause Fear to the change of point of vision. That is understandable .[/QUOTE]

Not at all, we actually discussed isometric view but scrapped it for above reasons. It�s good for eye candy, as I mentioned above but fails at a realistic terrain representation that allows the player to grab detailed terrain data.

Then also CL is a new game concept apart from SP ,it may be familiar to SP people but offers much more then any of the SP versions or mods.

_____________________________

Marc von Martial
instagram stream

(in reply to Halberdier)

Post #: 15

- 2/24/2003 3:49:04 AM

Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline

I like the Panzer General line of games. I think PG2 is a fine game.

I play it mostly because it plays well enough.

I certainly don't play it for the pretty animations though. Those animations are only there because the designer assumed they were needed. I don't agree they were.
I would have enjoyed the game in 2d just as easily.

For those though, that would say, "well I won't buy your game if it doesn't have pretty animations? well hmmm, I guess "good bye" sums up my response. You go off to your niche of the niche market and enjoy the games your own way (assuming anyone ever makes any).

The power of the computer is not the reason for doing those pretty animations. Nor should it ever be.

Personally I am tired of people constantly insisting in dumping "pretty" on my wargames like it will attract non wargamers to wargames like ants to to honey.

I have no interest in attention deficit, eye candy dependent wargamers.

This might sound harsh, but I won't miss those people that will stalk off in a huff because they were not given their "pretty" fix.

And frankly, if this dooms the wargame inductry in say 40 years max when all the 1960's era wargames are under sod, then so be it. It's my hobby, and I like it this way.

I can't get that Blitzkrieg file to run (can't because my system can't indentify the file extension). If Marc's comparison to Sudden Strike is of a game of a similar design, I can say that it is not enough reason to fuss over.
I have Sudden Strike 2. Nice looking game, nice looking graphics. Pity the game has no real serious simulation as well. I played a game that looked like a good illustration of the game's over all design.
I think it played like a grade 3 classroom on too much sugar. The fancy animations did not do the game any good either.

Anyone that wants the industry to produce games like this won't get any help from me.

Lets face the cold reality of it. Turn based games rely on intensely accurate detailed simulations. We don't have much interest in animations that are just animating "because".

I do NOT care if the computer can handle pointless animations, because I have no use for pointless animations.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Halberdier)

Post #: 16

- 2/24/2003 5:51:42 PM

Marc von Martial

Posts: 10875
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Bonn, Germany
Status: offline

Na, that�s pointless too Sarge, we discussed that allready. If you make a good wargame pretty graphics do not hurt at all, they help selling the product, that�s a fact. You have a good engine and add pretty grpahics to it, you end up with an even better game.

Maybe it�helps not selling the product to you , but it helps with other people ;). You know there are people that want to get emerged more into the feeling of "beeing there" then just to stare on counters. However, you have to find the best middle between eye candy and for example good presentation of, to stay on topic, terrain representation. After all we want to make a kickass wargame that pleases "grognards" and the "fun players" both.

_____________________________

Marc von Martial
instagram stream

(in reply to Halberdier)

Post #: 17

- 2/24/2003 7:57:08 PM

Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline

I am not saying graphics have no value.

My beef is when the value is based on the graphics.

If you can make a "kickass" game, and theeeeeeen add cool graphics, I will be happy.

But if the game is not considered "cool" until it has "kickass" graphics, then the person never wanted to play a wargame in the first place.

Presentation is a big factor in a game too of course. Heck I can give you examples of board games and computer games I won't play simply because the graphics suck, and the presentation was botched.

But for all the people out there screaming for better and better graphics, you are wasting your time trying to convince me, that all of them are "just wishing a great wargame had better graphics".

Nope a lot of them are wishing a great graphics game could be a better wargame. They are putting the cart ahead of the horse.

Steel Panthers WaW is great, because it is both a great wargame and has great graphics (just because they are not 3d with near TV quality image definition, doesn't mean they are not great).

But it started out as a great wargame, and had average graphics.
The graphics were made better after it was clear it was a great wargame.

I get really bored watching people try to make a wargame great out of a dumb program that just happens to "look cool".

I have as a good example Sudden Strike 2.
Sure it runs, and sure its fun to fiddle with for a short span of time (a very short span of time).
But it wasn't a great game when it was released, no it merely looked cool.
It still looks cool, but in 2 years time no one will give a hoot what it looks like, as no one will care a hoot about it.
The graphics will no longer be cool, and it will be a nothing much of a game (something people won't want even for free).

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Halberdier)

Post #: 18

- 3/3/2003 3:35:26 AM

Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline

clean up post, just ridding a certain name here move along nothing to see.

Everyone should add a bump or something and do there part to keep our Forums looking free of annoying spam hehe.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Halberdier)

Post #: 19

"when the value is based on the graphics" - 3/11/2003 12:53:25 AM

Halberdier

Posts: 27
Joined: 2/19/2003
Status: offline

Les the Sarge 9-1 ,when you talk about my language, you make me think that maybe you do not see what is the problem because you can't see "where is the problem" .

But the developers would see easily where they need better graphics if they tried to make this "crazy" experiment with their "Early Alpha Combat leader":

DELETE ALL THE WORDS OF THE PLAY SCREEN (or use a German language if you are english speaker ;) )

�You can understand what are you doing ? �what occur in the battle screen ?
Yes= Ok is the right way .
No= aha! maybe there are a bad or is not enough graphics .

[IMG]http://www.matrixgames.com/Games/CombatLeader-EastFront/graphics/screenshots/CL03-28-02_sm.jpg[/IMG]

(in reply to Halberdier)

Post #: 20

- 3/11/2003 1:18:23 AM

Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline

I am not sure exactly what he said, but I am going to attempt to interpret.

So bear with me as I am merely guessing.

Graphics transcends language.

Alas I will concede sometimes graphics can eliminate a need for textual definitions. I often play Steel Panthers without any use of the message traffic.
I click on a unit, get a movement shadow to where it can attempt to go, and elect to go there or not.

Not very scientific, not always advisable, but it's doable.

A person that sits down with the manual for Steel Panthers will fast find out probably, that I don't know all the tricks.

I play the game almost entirely through the visual appeal of the interface. There is a minimum of text I need to use, but it is very minimal.

Graphics has allowed this, as well as a very user friendly interface.
But there are limits on just how "pretty" those graphics need to be. For me at least.

Now a superior product, would be like I see done more and more with dvds. It would be grand if at game start, our German playing fans, could click on German language function, and their whole game would execute in their actual language.

Then we could get back to saying pointless graphics are pointless graphics.

And some of us could write in "pointless graphics are pointless graphics" but in German.

English is not the best language out there, but until we give our non english gamers a choice, they are almost always stuck with it.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Halberdier)

Post #: 21

- 3/11/2003 1:45:28 AM

Halberdier

Posts: 27
Joined: 2/19/2003
Status: offline

"...And some of us could write in "pointless graphics are pointless graphics" but in German...." :D :lol

But you , from your self, recognize that without "letters" the player do not know what is exactly he doing. Those are the points to improve at least , I think.

(in reply to Halberdier)

Post #: 22