Graphics very VGA-ish (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Battlefront



Message

goodwoodrw -> Graphics very VGA-ish (2/10/2007 12:33:56 PM)

I'm a bit disappointed in the graphics. not the map graphics but more the icons, unit and information graphics, I'm one of those folks thats half way between needing glasses and not needing glasses, I'm afraid to say the text in this game is going accelerate my need for them. A clear text Like CoTA would have easier to read. Unit icons on map very small, other than the alt button enlarge a portion of the map is away to enlarge the map?
The graphics certainly are not the state of the art



e_barkmann -> RE: Graphics very VGA-ish (2/10/2007 1:32:14 PM)

from your earlier post I'd say you've got a problem with either your monitor, video card or driver. All looks nice and crisp here.

cheers



goodwoodrw -> RE: Graphics very VGA-ish (2/10/2007 1:36:24 PM)

I did, I had my contrast and brightness down. the kids,[:-] But the comment I make has nothing to do with monitors, the graphics are not sharp, compared with COTA, perhaps I should have a 19 inch screen, my 17", is outdated perhaps

sorry about my poor spelling and grammar fixed I think[:D]



e_barkmann -> RE: Graphics very VGA-ish (2/10/2007 1:39:46 PM)

true, I use a 19" lcd at 1280x1024...they are so cheap now it's definitely worth jumping in.



blastpop -> RE: Graphics very VGA-ish (2/10/2007 2:42:21 PM)

I have to concur a bit with BASB on this. While not bad they could be clearer. I think it is a question more of style than actually being VGAish so to speak. And I say that as I own a new high resolution flat screen. The game is great tho so I tend to overlook the fact I'm not thrilled with the games icons.



BlackSunshine -> RE: Graphics very VGA-ish (2/10/2007 4:19:10 PM)

I'm with BASB on this one too.  That was one of the first things I noticed.  The unit icons in all of the previous Decisive Battles games were very crisp.  These... well, bleh. [:(]

Love the game, just that the icons could use some polish.



Valgua -> RE: Graphics very VGA-ish (2/10/2007 4:54:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BASB

I'm a bit disappointed in the graphics. not the map graphics but more the icons, unit and information graphics, I'm one of those folks thats half way between needing glasses and not needing glasses, I'm afraid to say the text in this game is going accelerate my need for them. A clear text Like CoTA would have easier to read. Unit icons on map very small, other than the alt button enlarge a portion of the map is away to enlarge the map?
The graphics certainly are not the state of the art


I agree completely. The game is wonderful but the graphics of the icon is not. I prefer good old TOAW in that department.

Filippo



Valgua -> RE: Graphics very VGA-ish (2/10/2007 4:58:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BASB

I did, I had my contrast and brightness down. the kids,[:-] But the comment I make has nothing to do with monitors, the graphics are not sharp, compared with COTA, perhaps I should have a 19 inch screen, my 17", is outdated perhaps

sorry about my poor spelling and grammar fixed I think[:D]


Of course it would be better on a bigger monitor with higher resolution, but fact is that TOAW's and CotA's icons are far clearer and easier to read.

Filippo



Missouri_Rebel -> RE: Graphics very VGA-ish (2/11/2007 12:32:50 AM)

I agree. The unit icons are indeed of lower quality. Some of the formations use very simuliar icons that are hard to tell apart. Any way for someone to mod them? Someone other than me of no talent?

mo reb



Erik Rutins -> RE: Graphics very VGA-ish (2/11/2007 12:53:18 AM)

Goodness, they look about the same as the DB icons to me. As far as the thread title, I think someone has forgotten what VGA really looked like!

Here's a VGA shot from Conflict Middle East.

[image]local://upfiles/9/DFA6ADFB890143E293E3735CD6D34DF4.jpg[/image]



Terminus -> RE: Graphics very VGA-ish (2/11/2007 1:02:55 AM)

Heh...



Missouri_Rebel -> RE: Graphics very VGA-ish (2/11/2007 1:04:16 AM)

Man that looks good. When will it be released? Soon I hope.

[:D]

Seriously though. The units are a bit...er...um...blurry to me. As stated before, cota and others use a far crisper unit graphic. I can zoom in a bit, but it only gets worse. Sorry, but the simple truth. Is it still a decent game? I think it will be. But for me and others, it could/should have been a little cleaner.

mo reb


EDIT: I am going to fire it up on the desktop to see if it is more on my end but I don't think so. The maps look great IMO so it leaves me to believe it is just the unit icons. Will report on my findings. Not a game breaker though. I still recodmend(sp?) this title.



JSS -> RE: Graphics very VGA-ish (2/11/2007 1:51:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

I agree. The unit icons are indeed of lower quality. Some of the formations use very simuliar icons that are hard to tell apart. Any way for someone to mod them? Someone other than me of no talent?

mo reb



Almost everything can be mod'd[:D] You just have to have the interest/time (and a basic graphics editor).



Halsey -> RE: Graphics very VGA-ish (2/11/2007 1:56:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Goodness, they look about the same as the DB icons to me. As far as the thread title, I think someone has forgotten what VGA really looked like!

Here's a VGA shot from Conflict Middle East.

[image]local://upfiles/9/DFA6ADFB890143E293E3735CD6D34DF4.jpg[/image]


Now that's funny![:D]



Motomouse -> RE: Graphics very VGA-ish (2/11/2007 2:23:40 AM)

While I like TAOW, I personally prefer the DB / Battlefront icon look. I like especially the unit insignias on the icons. I use the 1024x768 resolution on a 1280x1024 flatscreen with DB / Battlefront. While this leads to a degraded image quality with many other games, I always thought the resulting filtering works quite nice with the DB and now Battlefront graphic style.

Regards
Motomouse



TheHellPatrol -> RE: Graphics very VGA-ish (2/11/2007 4:18:02 AM)

I think the graphics are gorgeous! It's come a long way from Korsun Pocket. Indeed, a 20" LCD monitor is a must, and they aren't that expensive anymore. My first digital LCD monitor was $1400[X(], albeit top of the line, but now it's replacement after 5 or 6 years was $499...not bad at all[:)].



bink -> RE: Graphics very VGA-ish (2/11/2007 7:14:23 PM)

TheHellPatrol,

Battlefront does not support a 20" LCD monitor in native 1600 x 1200 resolution, so definitely NOT a must!  Battlefront will either run in a window, or scale up and look blurry. 

See the "Are Widescreen Monitors Supported?" thread for more info.

Bink



wworld7 -> RE: Graphics very VGA-ish (2/11/2007 7:27:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Goodness, they look about the same as the DB icons to me. As far as the thread title, I think someone has forgotten what VGA really looked like!

Here's a VGA shot from Conflict Middle East.

[image]local://upfiles/9/DFA6ADFB890143E293E3735CD6D34DF4.jpg[/image]


WOW, This brings back memories...

Flipper



TheHellPatrol -> RE: Graphics very VGA-ish (2/11/2007 9:11:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bink

TheHellPatrol,

Battlefront does not support a 20" LCD monitor in native 1600 x 1200 resolution, so definitely NOT a must!  Battlefront will either run in a window, or scale up and look blurry. 

See the "Are Widescreen Monitors Supported?" thread for more info.

Bink

[X(]Who the Hell cares about 1600 x 1200! My God! I couldn't see that with binoculars[:D]...i always use 1024 x 768...it's readable, and with a quality monitor it's very pretty. I have the latest video card on my Laptop...THE latest...but i still only use 1024 x 768. @44 years old that's as good as it's gonna get[8|].

NOTE: Nowhere in this post did anyone mention 1600 x 1200[:-][;)].



bink -> RE: Graphics very VGA-ish (2/11/2007 10:42:48 PM)

TheHellPatrol,

What is the point of having a 20" LCD if you are not going to run at native resolution, which is 1600x1200?  You either run it in a window, which means a smaller monitor is OK and 20" LCD is NOT a must, or you scale it, which means a loss of crispness from running in non-native resolution.

I don't understand why the compromise in either of those cases makes a 20" LCD a MUST.

Bink



TheHellPatrol -> RE: Graphics very VGA-ish (2/11/2007 10:57:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bink

TheHellPatrol,

What is the point of having a 20" LCD if you are not going to run at native resolution, which is 1600x1200?  You either run it in a window, which means a smaller monitor is OK and 20" LCD is NOT a must, or you scale it, which means a loss of crispness from running in non-native resolution.

I don't understand why the compromise in either of those cases makes a 20" LCD a MUST.

Bink
A "Digital" high-end LCD monitor looks perfect at anything other than 800 x 600. The post started about not being able to read the print ergo: a larger monitor is a MUST and a lower resolution is a MUST for those of us who have burned out our eyes on CRT monitors over the years. Besides, i want the best and i can afford it with the added benefit that my son (10) can play FEAR or Farcry at 1600 x 1200 all day long and doesn't have a problem with it[:@]...damn youngsters[;)].
In summary, a larger monitor @ 1078 x 768 is perfect for me with my PC glasses with a special anti-glare coating which i wish i knew of 14 years ago[8|]. I have 20/20 vision but i can no longer read fine print. Now, if one wants to be frugal, i'll retract my statement that an "LCD" monitor is a must and just say a 20" + is a must[:)]. Be warned, a CTR monitor is harmful to the eyes[8D].



Owen -> RE: Graphics very VGA-ish (2/12/2007 10:50:53 PM)

Some people don't understand that LCD monitors have a native resolution. In other words the LCD screen is made up of precisely so many little square pixels that each can hold a distinct color. Typically 17" and 19" monitors are made up of 1280 x 1024 little LCD pixels while 20" and 21" monitors have 1600 x 1200 pixels.

If you set your Windows screen resolution to match the native resolution of your LCD monitor everything should look very sharp because Windows will build it's fonts and other graphic elements out of screen pixels that precisely match the physical pixel count of your monitor.

But if you use a Windows resolution of 1280 x 1024 on a 20" LCD monitor then the screen elements will not precisely match the monitor's elements and Windows will extrapolate intermediate colors when elements break mid-pixel and things will look fuzzier. Still, some people will do this because it's more important to them to make screen elements bigger than to optimize clarity.

Hope that helps. It's amazing how many people I've had to explain that to over the years.

On the subject of Battlefronts icon graphics. I don't have Battlefront but I've long felt that Decisive Battles games have a very coarse look to their graphics. Its as if they paint the icons with a two pixel wide brush instead of a one pixel wide brush. Take a screenshot of a DB game and one of ToAW and blow both up until you can see the the individual pixels. The difference between the way the two systems draw graphics is remarkable.



Ursa MAior -> RE: Graphics very VGA-ish (2/13/2007 12:17:09 AM)

I am not a GFX fan, I had countless hours of fun with War in Russia (which was nice even in its simplicity), but this graphics is ...

Not vga but the counters and the whole UI looks like a 80's vintage game, where having 256 colours instead of 16 made all designers go crazy with yellowish pink and turquise turned deep purple.

Even the original Steel Panthers had a nicer look.

Another no buy for me after Harpoon 3. With these "dusted down looking" games I always have a feeling that it is could be rip off due to the unchanged look. Who will take the time and money to find out what is inside if from the outside it looks the same?



goodwoodrw -> RE: Graphics very VGA-ish (2/13/2007 1:19:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Goodness, they look about the same as the DB icons to me. As far as the thread title, I think someone has forgotten what VGA really looked like!

Here's a VGA shot from Conflict Middle East.

[image]local://upfiles/9/DFA6ADFB890143E293E3735CD6D34DF4.jpg[/image]


Point taken, but my point is that the graphics are poor compared to todays standard. It is generally accepted that graphics are not all that important in good wargames, but one needs to be comfortable with what one sees on the screen. This is the first game I have played on a computer that I need to wear my glasses. I feel I have wasted $65 on this game, because I'm finding it hard to maintain interest due to the strain on my eyes, unfortunately we are not all in early twenties with 20/20 vision that play wargames. Sadly I'm probably missing out on really good game. To push the point further, perhaps if the same type 256 colour graphics that were used in Warlords were used in Battlefront I would probably be able to see and play this game. For the record since downloading Battlefront, I have invested more hours in Warlords than Battlefront, Why? its a fun game and I have no trouble seeing what I'm playing!




Gregor_SSG -> RE: Graphics very VGA-ish (2/14/2007 7:47:37 AM)

All I can say is that you can't please all of the people all of the time, and that the graphics in all of our wargames were created by just one artist, so I can't see that we've made any violent stylistic changes.

Gregor



Ursa MAior -> RE: Graphics very VGA-ish (2/14/2007 2:35:50 PM)

Well IMHO if I ever rerelease a game I would make sure that not only the unvisible parts are updated.

What was good -even excellent- in 1996 is not even acceptable in 2007.



PDiFolco -> RE: Graphics very VGA-ish (2/14/2007 3:47:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

Well IMHO if I ever rerelease a game I would make sure that not only the unvisible parts are updated.

What was good -even excellent- in 1996 is not even acceptable in 2007.


What are you talking about ? BF runs at 1280*1024 with 2D graphics and debatable (as always) art, there's been no breakthrough in 2D technology in the 2000's, if you want 3D fuzz-bang you're surely disappointed by all Matrix offers and warmes in general : everything is 2D, WaW runs at max 1024*768, CC-CoI and ToAW3 looks are visually twins of the previous releases, etc etc..[&:]



Pocus -> RE: Graphics very VGA-ish (2/14/2007 3:55:31 PM)

Birth of America* looks 2D, but uses Direct3D and is routinely played in 1600x1200 resolution (more regions to show). And the next game (Ageod's American Civil War**) will even have the user interface expands to accomodate more units details in higher resolution. (yes, shameless plug [:D] ).

*: sold at Matrix'

**: Perhaps sold at Matrix* (Depends of David too [;)] )



goodwoodrw -> RE: Graphics very VGA-ish (2/14/2007 3:59:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

All I can say is that you can't please all of the people all of the time, and that the graphics in all of our wargames were created by just one artist, so I can't see that we've made any violent stylistic changes.

Gregor

Sorry Gregor, no Violent changes required, just sharpen up the graphics so people like me an see what we are playing, so we can enjoy the game. I can't play this game because I can't see it as well as I would like. As it stands at the moment, I've wasted 65 bucks on a game that I can't enjoy. I'm sure Matrix isn't going to give me a refund. Just sit back and with unbias look, compare Battlefront with 1 or 2 other games on the Matrix list, such as COTA, Flashpoint Germany,WITP and a few others and make an honest assessment about the text and the unit counters, (there's no question the maps are well done).



TheHellPatrol -> RE: Graphics very VGA-ish (2/14/2007 7:10:15 PM)

[X(]I don't know what you are talking about, i have the same eye issues as you and with a new Monitor and my current PC glasses nothing has changed since BiN except it's a little prettier IMHO. Sounds like you are playing at too high a resolution or you need a bigger monitor. If you can't read the print then i'd consider getting a different hobby...like i once did before upgrading[;)].



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.453125