Another good game skipped because of ancient sub 1280x1024 resolution! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Commander - Europe at War Gold



Message

highpocrisy -> Another good game skipped because of ancient sub 1280x1024 resolution! (10/20/2007 10:04:52 AM)

What a disappointment... here I was, ready to shell out a hard earned $50 bones on a half decent wargame and I get the 1024x bombshell again.
Now I am not one that will put graphics, sound or even interface above gameplay, but come on!
No one sports a CRT anymore!
I understand it's too much code to redesign older games to please everyone's native resolution and people should deal with a black stripe if they went for a wide screen,but how many of your costumers still run anything at 1024?!
Me and my friends already missed out on a whole bunch of games from Matrix and other publishers but I refuse to pay 50 for a game that doesn't at least support 1280 anymore.
No matter how good the gameplay.
And that's a shame because that has already meant a lot of older republished games, but now I see even recent wargames go the same route.
Obviously this genre has some of the most hardcore fans willing to put up with with ASCII graphics in 2007 just so the genre doesn't die out, but eventually people will vote with their money...
Anyhow, this is not a bitching rant, just word to the wise.
Doesn't make sense designing games in a resolution not even ~10% of your consumer base runs.



Magpius -> RE: Another good game skipped because of ancient sub 1280x1024 resolution! (10/20/2007 11:57:29 AM)

wholeheartedly agree.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Another good game skipped because of ancient sub 1280x1024 resolution! (10/20/2007 1:11:30 PM)

While I hear you and we are always looking to have all new game support higher resolutions, a few comments about CEAW:

1. It runs just fine in higher resolutions and looks great, even scaled. This is not some situation where you get a pixelated, nasty mess.

2. It has a windowed mode if you don't want any scaling at all.

3. Way more than 10% of our customers still run/support 1024x768

Regards,

- Erik



Stryder -> RE: Another good game skipped because of ancient sub 1280x1024 resolution! (10/20/2007 7:35:32 PM)

this is basically a table top like game ported to the computer.. not sure what higher graphics would do.. but it's your money so keep it....[;)]



pad152 -> RE: Another good game skipped because of ancient sub 1280x1024 resolution! (10/20/2007 11:49:05 PM)

Erik

I just went shopping for a new monitor and was suprised that stores Best Buy, Circuit City, CompUSA, Office Depot, Walmart, Staples, etc. have 75-90% monitors in now wide-screen. I don't know what is driving the wide-screen monitors but finding any monitor less than 19" and non-wide screen are getting harder to find.

Most Monitors are now 19" with default res of 1280x1024 and wide-screen 19" with a default res of 1440x900 and anything less than the default res. looks like crap!

Matrix isn't the only one behind the curve, I've yet to see any game designed for to take advantage of wide screens. I just downloaded the Strategic Command 2 Weapons and Warfare Demo and it has a max res of 1280x1024. [8|]





Magpius -> RE:solution (10/21/2007 1:22:36 AM)

quote:

1. It runs just fine in higher resolutions and looks great, even scaled. This is not some situation where you get a pixelated, nasty mess.

Q: How can you set a full screen resolution higher than 1024x768?



davetheroad -> RE: RE:solution (10/21/2007 1:30:30 AM)

I use a 17" Dell with 1280X1024 (5:4)resolution and Commander looks just fine although there must be some distortion as the screen ratio is not the same as 1024x768 (4:3)

Theoretically the game should look just as good on any display.



lomyrin -> RE: RE:solution (10/21/2007 1:56:09 AM)

J  have a 22 inch widescreen monitor with 1680 x 1050 resolution.  This game, as well as any other game I have tried with this monitor, fills the screen nicely without any distortion.

Lars



IainMcNeil -> RE: RE:solution (10/21/2007 2:05:11 AM)

Development teams for these type of games are small - very small. One guy did everything really. It means you wont get as many features as games from big teams but they dont make this type of game because the market is too small. So it's catch 22 ;)



Major Victory -> RE: Another good game skipped because of ancient sub 1280x1024 resolution! (10/21/2007 4:41:04 AM)

Just play the game, get over it, your tears are unbecoming!



Irish Guards -> RE: Another good game skipped because of ancient sub 1280x1024 resolution! (10/21/2007 6:28:27 AM)

LMAO ... [&o][:'(][8|][X(][:'(]
IDG



Fred98 -> RE: Another good game skipped because of ancient sub 1280x1024 resolution! (10/21/2007 7:10:38 AM)

I have a Dell 22" widescreen set to 1,680 x 1,050.  The game runs just fine with no distortion.

I never hit the "1,024 bombshell".

-




fh -> RE: Another good game skipped because of ancient sub 1280x1024 resolution! (10/21/2007 7:26:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152
Matrix isn't the only one behind the curve, I've yet to see any game designed for to take advantage of wide screens. I just downloaded the Strategic Command 2 Weapons and Warfare Demo and it has a max res of 1280x1024. [8|]


I just ran the demo on my laptop higher at 1440x900 and Blitzkrieg runs on my desktop at 1650x1080. Maybe your system maxes out at 1280x1024?



Fred98 -> RE: RE:solution (10/23/2007 9:09:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Agent S
Q: How can you set a full screen resolution higher than 1024x768?


Close all programs.

On your Windows desktop right click

Choose Options and go from there
-






Magpius -> Should be in tech thread... (10/23/2007 12:31:42 PM)

What don't I get here.
I run a Dell laptop at 1920x1200 native resolution.
When the game starts, the switches to 1024x768. (full screen).
When playing the game toggled to window mode, yes, it appears high res in the top left corner of the screen, but modifying the desktop resolution only makes the windowed mode larger.
As far as I can tell if playing the game in full screen mode, no other resolution other than 1024x768 is available.
-and hey Major Victory; I enjoy this game as much as anyone else here, but if this issue is not raised, then there is always the likelihood that games in development could also fail to consider high resolution values as standards.



YohanTM2 -> RE: Should be in tech thread... (10/24/2007 5:34:40 AM)

You always have to take into account the time Major Victory and IDG post - especially if it is later on a Saturday evening if you get my drift...this 40oz opinion may impact others as well on occasion.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Agent S

What don't I get here.
I run a Dell laptop at 1920x1200 native resolution.
When the game starts, the switches to 1024x768. (full screen).
When playing the game toggled to window mode, yes, it appears high res in the top left corner of the screen, but modifying the desktop resolution only makes the windowed mode larger.
As far as I can tell if playing the game in full screen mode, no other resolution other than 1024x768 is available.
-and hey Major Victory; I enjoy this game as much as anyone else here, but if this issue is not raised, then there is always the likelihood that games in development could also fail to consider high resolution values as standards.





IainMcNeil -> RE: Should be in tech thread... (10/24/2007 12:12:09 PM)

Screen res is certainly somethign we like to deal with if we can, so don;t worry about that. The problem is sometimes its possible and sometimes it's not. If a game is 3D then you can resize without any issues. If a game is 2D then it can be much more complex, possibly requiring the UI to be written for each resolution with matching graphics - and that's just not possible and is the case for CEAW. It depends how things are structured.



ravinhood -> RE: Should be in tech thread... (10/24/2007 5:41:07 PM)

Ever notice how the techies say that NOBODY ELSE uses such n such? LOL Just because you have a 19" monitor doesn't mean everyone does. I certainly used a CRT monitor 15" up until just a few weeks ago. And I'd still use it today if it hadn't started giving me some issues and I have 10 years of use out of it. ;)

Wide Screen is nice an all makes things huge, but, I find 1024 x 760 just fine even on a wide screen. The font looks bigger and it doesn't shrink it down to microscopic views like the 1260 and the 1400 and most especially the 1600.

Matrixgames should well cater to it's old guard of consumers us old farts with the money to buy their games (when we feel like it) as oppose to some whiney techie who thinks everything should be made to his systems standards instead of anyone elses lol.



highpocrisy -> RE: Another good game skipped because of ancient sub 1280x1024 resolution! (10/25/2007 4:59:19 AM)

well maybe you should hint for your grand grandkids to get you glasses for next Christmas [8D]



SMK-at-work -> RE: Another good game skipped because of ancient sub 1280x1024 resolution! (10/25/2007 6:32:50 AM)

I've got 3 15" CRT monitors - at $5 each they should last me for several years yet.



ravinhood -> RE: Another good game skipped because of ancient sub 1280x1024 resolution! (10/25/2007 6:50:25 AM)

Good deal SMK where did you get them that cheap? I want some. ;)



RedMike -> RE: Another good game skipped because of ancient sub 1280x1024 resolution! (10/25/2007 7:42:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: highpocrisy

What a disappointment... here I was, ready to shell out a hard earned $50 bones on a half decent wargame and I get the 1024x bombshell again.
Now I am not one that will put graphics, sound or even interface above gameplay, but come on!
No one sports a CRT anymore!
I understand it's too much code to redesign older games to please everyone's native resolution and people should deal with a black stripe if they went for a wide screen,but how many of your costumers still run anything at 1024?!
Me and my friends already missed out on a whole bunch of games from Matrix and other publishers but I refuse to pay 50 for a game that doesn't at least support 1280 anymore.
No matter how good the gameplay.
And that's a shame because that has already meant a lot of older republished games, but now I see even recent wargames go the same route.
Obviously this genre has some of the most hardcore fans willing to put up with with ASCII graphics in 2007 just so the genre doesn't die out, but eventually people will vote with their money...
Anyhow, this is not a bitching rant, just word to the wise.
Doesn't make sense designing games in a resolution not even ~10% of your consumer base runs.



Me. I do. My FP runs at 1024x768 and I like it that way.



leastonh1 -> RE: Another good game skipped because of ancient sub 1280x1024 resolution! (10/25/2007 3:47:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Major Victory

Just play the game, get over it, your tears are unbecoming!


ROFL. Well said! [:D]

If this were a new 1st person, I could understand the complaint. But for a 2D wargame, what difference does screen res make?! That's a genuine question btw. Why would running this game at 1280 make it better?

Cheers,
Jim



fh -> RE: Another good game skipped because of ancient sub 1280x1024 resolution! (10/25/2007 5:50:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim_H

quote:

ORIGINAL: Major Victory

Just play the game, get over it, your tears are unbecoming!


ROFL. Well said! [:D]

If this were a new 1st person, I could understand the complaint. But for a 2D wargame, what difference does screen res make?! That's a genuine question btw. Why would running this game at 1280 make it better?

Cheers,
Jim


Higher resolution gives you more of the game map on screen which is always good for strategy. Looks like this game uses zoom methods to compensate for lack of multiresolution support but I would love to see this game first hand before I purchase as I dont know if the zoom method will satisfy me.

I've been sitting on the fence for this one waiting for the price to come down as it looks too similar to Strategic Command but a few of the things I like are oil which seems to add a nice strategic touch and the bigger map. Just wish it had more diplomacy and weather and the lack of consequences for player actions is a definite negative. A demo would be nice so I can really see what I might be missing here but of course that is not an option which I really do not understand but that has been debated so I'll just keep waiting.




leastonh1 -> RE: Another good game skipped because of ancient sub 1280x1024 resolution! (10/25/2007 9:42:36 PM)

fh - Yes, a higher res than 1024 will give you more of the map on screen, but it's hardly a reason for diatribe of the op, which was my point. I think it was way over the top. As someone else said (from Slitherine iirc), the problem of scaling a 2D game according to screen res is a lot more complex than a 3D game. I think that's particularly true if the game uses gdi too. All the people who've posted here (that I've read) who have the game say it matters not that it runs at 1024. If everyone who runs it was complaining, then I'd probably take more notice.

Regards,
Jim



highpocrisy -> RE: Should be in tech thread... (10/25/2007 10:21:40 PM)

just for the record since mr old fart there wants to bring up who buys more matrix games and that i shouldn't complain
My Registered Games

Games Registered
Campaigns On The Danube 21 JUN 2006 Private Downloads
Steel Panthers: World at War - Generals Edition 21 JUN 2006 Private Downloads
Battles In Normandy 21 JUN 2006 Private Downloads
Highway to the Reich 21 JUN 2006 Private Downloads
Across the Dnepr: Korsun Pocket Add-on 21 JUN 2006 No Downloads Available
Korsun Pocket 21 JUN 2006 No Downloads Available
Uncommon Valor 21 JUN 2006 Private Downloads
Tin Soldiers: Julius Caesar 21 JUN 2006 Private Downloads
Battles in Italy 21 JUN 2006 Private Downloads
Titans of Steel: Warring Suns 21 JUN 2006 Private Downloads
Battleground Europe - World War II Online 21 JUN 2006 Private Downloads
Norm Koger's The Operational Art of War III 21 JUN 2006 Private Downloads
Conquest of the Aegean 21 JUN 2006 No Downloads Available
Harpoon 3 - Advanced Naval Warfare 21 JUN 2006 Private Downloads
Panzer Command: Operation Winter Storm 30 JUN 2006 No Downloads Available
Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided 24 OCT 2006 Private Downloads
Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 1 DEC 2006 Private Downloads
Battlefront 28 FEB 2007 Private Downloads
Close Combat - Cross of Iron 28 FEB 2007 No Downloads Available
John Tiller's Campaign Series 6 JUN 2007 Private Downloads
Carriers at War 8 JUN 2007 Private Downloads
Guns Of August 1914 - 1918 21 AUG 2007 Private Downloads

My Registered Serial Numbers
To ensure the security and privacy of your serial numbers, they will not be displayed on this webpage. By completing the following request, your registered serial numbers will be sent to your account email address.

Please send my serial numbers to my email address.

So I think I've earned the right to a little constructive criticism...
crappy graphics is one thing.. stretched out crappy graphics...well let's just say I don't play Korsun pocket since I went LCD.
And excuse me for running this 3l33t |<-r4d machine.I mean I know I'm way of an early adopted of this LCD tech.I understand some ppl still adopting a waint and see with that high tech stuff but me I just gotta have that SMOKIN' 1280x1024 athlon 64 3200.I know that makes me a poser and all since to be trully hardcore wargamer you gotta run a zx spectrum or a c64 with a tape drive and 32kb of ram.anyhow I still play BiI, BiN and Battlefront you see cause it doesn't look like sh_t on my space age nasa supercomputer.That's all I was saying, no need to get your panties in a bunch.I'm a sucker for wargames too and I buy them things even thogh half of what I buy just colletcs virtual dust after half an hour as I go back on a Panzer Campaigns/TOAW binge.But sometimes I see myself st00pid as even the magazines say if you keep buying the same 'ol same 'ol, they'll keep puting out the same 'ol.But I guess in the back of my mind I'm still somewhere about 10 years ago worrying my fav genre will go the way of adventure games and dinosaurs :) So yeah mr "Matrixgames should well cater to it's old guard of consumers us old farts with the money to buy their games (when we feel like it) as oppose to some whiney techie who thinks everything should be made to his systems standards instead of anyone elses lol." ravinhood; chill dude.

P.S.
THAT was a bitching rant
deal wit it



leastonh1 -> RE: Should be in tech thread... (10/25/2007 10:46:24 PM)

Hmm, I seem to remember everyone, ok lots and lots of people, raved about Doom 3. Oh, the hype. Oh, the super PC you needed to get the best out of the game. In the end, it did look extremely good, but boy was it predictable and boring. Talk about lack of substance! There have been any number of games over the years, and still are, that are supposedly the next best thing to run on your super duper 10k rig. But, what's the point of all that hype for something that is effectively a showcase for the latest gfx or other effects when the gameplay has actually been an afterthought? There is no point afaic.

Wargames have never, ever been the right genre to show off graphics or expensive computers. The enthusiastic devs are more interested in features and simulation quality than what the interface looks like. Sometimes, that's probably a mistake and a good game may go by the wayside because it looks bad. However, for a game like this one that does look good and has been reviewed favourably, perhaps you are doing it a disservice? You haven't bought the game or seen it on your PC, yet you have already acted as judge and jury. I thought the whole point of being a wargame enthusiast was for the challenge of playing against the AI or other human to see if you can do better than a historical General? Maybe there's been a paradigm shift in the past ten minutes, but most wargamers (that I know) are happy with a functional gui, reasonable maps and unit icons that can be customised and great gameplay. Judging by the review I read by someone, unlike you, who has actually played the game, this is worth buying. If you don't agree, fine. Save your money and go buy the latest EA offering instead.

So, why did you buy such a high spec PC to play wargames on? Bit of a waste of resources if you ask me. It wont' make you enjoy the game any better, because the game probably runs just as well on a 5yr old spare I have sat next to my main PC on my desk here. Which, incidentally, cost me nothing hehe! [;)] [:'(]

Regards,
Jim



Vypuero -> RE: Should be in tech thread... (10/25/2007 11:35:32 PM)

I have a pretty good PC and a widescreen - I would love to have the resolution, maybe sometime in the future they can do it.  Meanwhile it does not appear to stretch all that much on my screen - it is elongated, but you hardly notice it once you get used to it.  I kind of like it now.



Fred98 -> RE: Should be in tech thread... (10/26/2007 1:30:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: highpocrisy

P.S.
THAT was a bitching rant
deal wit it



You ranted about the graphics of a game you don't have.

The rest of us with LCD monitors have no problem with the graphics as stated in the posts above.
-













SMK-at-work -> RE: Another good game skipped because of ancient sub 1280x1024 resolution! (10/26/2007 4:35:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Good deal SMK where did you get them that cheap? I want some. ;)


Surplus to req'ts at my place of employment - every year or so they sell off a bit of gear - these were probably used for 4 or 5 years & were fully depreciated. They don't tend to sell off boxes tho for some reason.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.28125