Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: So, what can we take from these reviews?

  1. #1
    Forum Commando
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Folsom, CA
    Posts
    1,289

    So, what can we take from these reviews?

    Now that we have a good selection of third-party impressions of RT (and, by extension, ATF) I think it is an opportune time to revisit some prior conclusions of my own, made in threads like this one.

    Namely, for ProSim to stop wasting time on graphics and sound, and concentrate on their strong points: simulation and content.

    So far, *every* review since BCT has agreed: the graphics and sound on ProSim titles are at best dated and at worst atrocious. Now, here's the funny part: the standard answer to this criticism is that "serious wargamers don't care about graphics and sound, just gameplay."

    Exactly!

    Its simple. If a game producer does not employ the services of a real artist skilled in the medium, the visual appearance is probably going to suck. Ditto for sound in the absence of a proper sound engineer. ATF is no exception to the rule.

    So, if ProSim really wants to compete in the "look and feel" department, then hire the necessary talent to do it right. If you can't afford such help, or if its simply not a priority, then you should quit trying to provide "pretty" effects. They're not very pretty, and you're not impressing much of anybody. Such half-efforts are arguably worse than no effort at all at graphic polish. They steal developer time and effort from things you actually do well, and provide further ammunition for critics who regard your efforts as amateur.

    The DoD doesn't see a need for weapon sounds and pretty pictures in its C2 systems, and neither do serious wargamers, generally speaking. It is doubtful you can afford the necessary investment to compete with mainstream RTS, nor is there likely to be a good return on that investment. Simplify!

    My advice is to actually *roll back* many of the "improvements" seen since BCT. Get rid of the semi-animated picture icons. Get rid of the "move" sounds. Seriously consider getting rid of "fire" sounds, or at least generalizing them to "clue" sounds rather than "realistic" sounds, since it can be nice to have an audio cue that a firefight is taking place; it doesn't need to sound like an actual firefight, though. Definitely provide an option to turn "fight" sounds off. Get rid of the Flash intros, or at least provide an option to turn them off. If you have to make something look nice, concentrate your efforts on the map, since that's the one thing that's going to dominate the screen. Making the map vector-based instead of raster would go a long way towards smoothing all that out, for example.

    Now, don't get me wrong. When I advocate the dropping of the "pretty" efforts, that doesn't mean I think the interface is fine and can remain clunky. I agree that the interface is the second-worst aspect of ATF, and that it desperately *does* need improvement. Its just that the improvement should be targeted towards *efficiency* rather than "prettiness". Things like resizeable dialogs. Filters for the spot report log. More useful overview map. Better tools for planning and calling fire support. More informative status markers. That sort of thing.

    AATF is the best chance to get back to the roots. Everybody wants to see that come out. Unfortunately, most of what we've heard about it are the prospect of further "improvements" in the graphics. But let's face it: ATF was supposed to raise the bar graphically from BCT, and proved very underwhelming on that score. RT offered a few more eye/ear candy tweaks, and again is wowing nobody in that department. Unless some dedicated graphical talent has joined the team, I strongly doubt further graphics tinkering in AATF will produce any substantive improvement, except perhaps by isolated comparison with ATF.

    I think most of us probably want the same things from AATF. Improved simulation. More efficient control interface. Smarter AI. Useful two-player and umpiring capabilities. Easier for modders to add content.

    Similarly, I think most of us don't really care all that much about the decor. Certainly not if the choice was between that and getting the game six months sooner, or with much better features in the simulation and interface categories.

    Take a hint, ProSim. Graphic design is not your strong suit. Concentrate on your core competencies.

    --- Kevin

  2. #2
    Forum Guru CPangracs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Within My Means
    Posts
    5,979
    Blog Entries
    1
    I have created a little page to explain why I disagree with kbluck's stance on the graphics in future releases of ATF products,...or at least MY releases. I explain myself at the bottom of the page. I do understand where the reviewers are coming from, however, compared to other wargames on the market with a 2D overhead view, i.e. SP, TOAW, etc., Raging Tiger and the other ATF games stack-up quite well.

    I AM in agreement on the sounds, however, and have toyed with the idea of going back to the original ATF sounds because it doesn't seem to matter. However, I will ONLY do this if I am personally dissatisfied with the sounds.

    Graphics Comparison
    Any man who refers to himself as an "intellectual" quite obviously isn't.

    -Me

  3. #3
    Forum Commando
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Folsom, CA
    Posts
    1,289
    Very interesting page. I'd just like to point out that improving the look of the map was one graphic issue that I said *did* merit effort, since the map largely dominates the game. What I would not spend time on is ever-prettier pictures of vehicles and whatnot --- unless, that is, ProSim is willing to spend the resources to obtain the services of a proper artist.

    One immediate point of concern, however, are the scale issues. I hope those "small" buildings are supposed to be apartment blocks and not hootches, because they're over 100 scale feet on a side.

    --- Kevin
    Last edited by kbluck; 28 Sep 04 at 17:24.

  4. #4
    Forum Guru CPangracs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Within My Means
    Posts
    5,979
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by kbluck
    Very interesting page. I'd just like to point out that improving the look of the map was one graphic issue that I said *did* merit effort, since the map largely dominates the game. What I would not spend time on is ever-prettier pictures of vehicles and whatnot --- unless, that is, ProSim is willing to spend the resources to obtain the services of a proper artist.

    One immediate point of concern, however, are the scale issues. I hope those "small" buildings are supposed to be apartment blocks and not hootches, because they're over 100 scale feet on a side.

    --- Kevin
    They are essentially representative of large buildings, yes, but there would truly be no way to cleanly show buildings that small without things being too pixelated, for sure. Again, a restriction of the engine.

    You'll also be happy to know that the icons for the new games (at lest mine and another coming out soon), will have very simple and clean vehicle/unit type markers.
    Any man who refers to himself as an "intellectual" quite obviously isn't.

    -Me

  5. #5
    Forum Commando
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Folsom, CA
    Posts
    1,289
    Quote Originally Posted by CPangracs
    You'll also be happy to know that the icons for the new games (at lest mine and another coming out soon), will have very simple and clean vehicle/unit type markers.
    :Reserving judgement pending further input:

    Darn, no smilie for that.

  6. #6
    Harpoon Forum Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,871
    To be honest, for AATF I'll be happy with monotone black and white as long as the engine does everything I want it to.

  7. #7
    Member # 3665 Redwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    5,448
    I don't care about anything mentioned here, except I want combat sounds allowing me to figure what is happening with my ears.

    Just don't make me hop through a gazillion of menu entries and dialog boxes all over the place and I'm a happy camper.

  8. #8
    Forum Commando
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Folsom, CA
    Posts
    1,289
    Quote Originally Posted by Redwolf
    I don't care about anything mentioned here, except I want combat sounds allowing me to figure what is happening with my ears.
    I agree that audio cues are useful. I don't think they need to be "realistic" battle sounds, however. They can be totally abstract, or somewhat representative of the real system but neither realistic nor continuous. Any sounds used must at least be high quality. Such samples are hard to find for most modern weapons.

    The slam dunk here would be a cue sound, user-customizable, that directs your attention to the overview map where a status indicator shows what is happening where. (Arty impact, new spot, direct fire, etc.) And useful, findable information in the spot report log to back it up. Click the status icon and the tactical map centers and zooms on the action, and the spot report log shows the relevant entries.

    --- Kevin

  9. #9
    President, ProSim Company
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,182
    KB

    user-customizable
    The sounds ARE user customizable, though I freely admit it would take a little work to change them.

  10. #10
    Forum Conscript
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    66
    Graphics are 2ndary to me I feel the main effort should be in 2 areas:
    1. Clean up the UI. This would decrease player workload & increase play tempo.
    2. PBEM, I don't know the game engine constrants re: implementation.
    3. Graphics, An increase in terrain granularity, map resolution, would allow one to visualise the terrain much more easily, contour lines notwithstanding, perhaps breaking out of 24 bit color as well. Visually something like what one sees in Matrix Games "Korsun Pocket". Change the colors of the vehicle bmps to Blue for NATO/USA & the OpFor to Red, or at least allow the option. easier to see on the map, I don't need my own or know OpFor forces camoflaged from me like I'm some Bluesuited Flyboy.
    4. Sound - don't care.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. IGN reviews GTA:LCS for PS2
    By PSP_Maniac in forum PC Gaming General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05 Jun 06, 23:01
  2. Reviews
    By danb00 in forum Forum Issues and Information
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 20 Mar 06, 19:30
  3. DS. Reviews.
    By loguemaster93 in forum PC Gaming General Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03 Jan 06, 21:27
  4. My Reviews
    By PSP4ME777 in forum PC Gaming General Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 03 Aug 05, 16:05
  5. do you want they reviews i put on?
    By mit123_6 in forum PC Gaming General Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08 May 05, 17:35

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •