Battlefront features the power of battalion-level combat in some of this period's most bloody and intense conflicts: Saipan, Market Garden, Novorossisk, and Gazala. Players will have realistic control over their soldiers, with a tactical scale just large enough to make a telling difference in the strategic picture.
Battlefront, a new engine released in 2007, runs in 1024x768 and 1280x1024 which are still BY FAR the most popular resolutions for gamers worldwide. Between those two, you've probably got 80-85% of computers. We are also noting the trend towards higher resolutions, which is still small but growing. We're encouraging developers to keep that trend in mind and a few of the games we've released would support your resolution natively.
However, turning off scaling should be an option for you that would allow the game to effectively look the same as if it were in Windowed mode. Have you research that further yet? At some point, running cutting edge hardware (as you are), you have to accept that being out on that edge means some extra work for you in getting everything working the way you want it to.
I have turned scaling off, which corrected the horizontal streatching, but the low resolution of the graphics is the prime issue to the lack of visual clarity.
Note: if the hex size isnt 5/8" tall (map not the alt-zoom) then the image is smaller/larger than on my screen.
"having to sit 12 inches away from my monitor and squint to play Battlefront is not conducive to a good time" -Berkut
I think you can see from the image that it is very difficult to see what is what. Note the blue dolphins and the red gremlins I commented on previously. Note how distorted the "1" is on the unit icon. That is how the majority of the game text looks. It would be possible to play this, but the eye strain is very significant, which is not condusive to spending any time at all staring at the screen, which is primarily what time is spent doing with a game like this.
The bottom line is: I cannot play this game due to the fact that the graphics make my eyes hurt and give me a headache over a short period of time.
Maybe if your running with a single speaker all is good. But I have my system hooked up to 5.1 surround sound, which is tied into my satillite TV, mp3 player, DVD, and CD player and that "static" noise echos through the house. There are no sound control sliders of any type in this game (another oversight IMO), and that sound at start up is not controled by muting the game volume.
But I work hard for my "toys", and I do tend to get cranky when I get time to "play" and they don't work as I expect them to. Hence, my persistant complaining.
Horrible screeching sounds? Poor graphics? Pixeletad number ones?
Those sound like real tough problems. I mean, I'd rather be in Arhem with Frost's second battalion, facing a couple of SS armoured divisions, than face these horrible problems. Give me a 7.92mm MG-42 burst in the stomach if you wish, but spare me the pixelation?
Get real guys. This a wargame. A seriously good one. You don't need sound or graphics. The ones we got im the game are good enough, and under my point of view, a step ahead compared to Battles in Italy (and those were good too).
Try to remove yourself from the small cosmetic details, and get to learn the system. I assure you is top notch, probably the best in the market.
As someone who has been experimenting with making a new scenario, I would like to point out that most of what people are complaining about is the fault of the scenario designers and not the program itself. The map and the icons are all created with a 3rd party paint pargram. In many cases, you can cut and paste from someone else's work to create your own icons. You can also take images and shrink them down to size and use them. In doing so, the images tend to take on a blurry look. I was able to sharpen them up in several instances so that their did not appear as blurry. Scenario designers need to take care when creating their icons to make them look as sharp as possible. In Doobious' images which he posted above, I was able to open up the scenario, load the icon and the images in question and sharpen them up with a paint program. I think that the blurriness of the images on the icon was caused when the images were shrinked. I am not suggesting that everyone should do this or even as an option because it is quite time consuming. I am pointing this out so that scenario creators can be aware of this and hopefully correct this.
Horrible screeching sounds? Poor graphics? Pixeletad number ones?
Those sound like real tough problems. I mean, I'd rather be in Arhem with Frost's second battalion, facing a couple of SS armoured divisions, than face these horrible problems. Give me a 7.92mm MG-42 burst in the stomach if you wish, but spare me the pixelation?
Get real guys. This a wargame. A seriously good one. You don't need sound or graphics. The ones we got im the game are good enough, and under my point of view, a step ahead compared to Battles in Italy (and those were good too).
Try to remove yourself from the small cosmetic details, and get to learn the system. I assure you is top notch, probably the best in the market.
*slow dramatic clap*
Well done.
The graphics are fantastic for a wargame. Maybe you should give the game a chance before bashing it. Seriously, how many wargames have beautiful graphics? Not a whole lot. Id rank BF up with any of them.
I have avoided LCD screens because they are game unfriendly - so, I chose a 22" NEC.
You bought the wrong tires for your car; don't blame the road for their performance.
-----------
The graphics are outstanding for a hex based wargame; as amtter of fact, I rathe enjoy this style, but then I am and old timey Wargamer, having started in 1979.
ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
Hm, my GeForce drivers give me a choice of "Centered Output" (which doesn't stretch) or Fixed Adapter Scaling or Fixed Aspect Ratio Scaling (which doesn't stretch). Either of the non-stretch options work with Battlefront on my widescreen laptop without stretching it. It just gets sort of a letterboxed look.
Those options do not work in the new nvidia cards 8xxx. Its a known bug that has been unfixed for months now. Just FYI. Almost all games have LCD resos or windowed modes nowadays though so its not a problem. My 32" LCD is superb for 2D strategy games (as long as its not forced to stretch allthough 1024x768 is marginally acceptable). War plan orange worked great on this allthough I dont recall what the reso was.
"99.9% of all internet arguments are due to people not understanding someone else's point. The other 0.1% is arguing over made up statistics."- unknown poster
"Those who dont read history are destined to repeat it."– Edmund Burke
My screen does not look like that Screenshot posted above. The res "gremlins" look more like people to me. Again, I blame the LCD monitor's attempt to stretch the 1024X768 image into a larger resident screen resolution. This causes image deformation and pixel "wandering."
I like the quote about the tires... very fitting. I do disagree with Iberian, because I happen to think that some wargames, in particular Matrix's games, are very pretty and have come to expect a certain level of "beauty" from their games. I love the aesthetics of both the DB series (BF included) and the WiTP/UV/WP:O series. So much so that I think HPS Panzer Campaigns Series and many of Shrapnel Games wargames (besides Dominions) just look barbaric in comparison. I guess to each his own. [8D]
Son of Montfort
"Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet!"
(Kill them all. God will know his own.)
[/font] [font="compatilfact lt regular"]ORIGINAL: Doobious[/font] [font="compatilfact lt regular"]Note the blue dolphins and the red gremlins I commented on previously. [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]
[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font] [font="compatilfact lt regular"]There are no red gremlins. In the manual they have a specific name and a particular purpose.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font] [font="compatilfact lt regular"]I don’t see any blue dolphins. I see blue arrows and which represent the front line as you would already know from reading the manual.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font] [font="compatilfact lt regular"]Ultimately your monitor is too big for wargaming.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font] [font="compatilfact lt regular"]-[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
I don't usually poke my nose into the other developer's forums except to lurk, or offer congratulations to the new Matrix acquirees. However, there are several issues raised in this thread that I think should be debated. With the intent, of course, to offer constructive criticisms for future improvements of the Matrix line of games. Forgive me in advance if I gore any sacred bulls, or step on anyone's toes.
The radio sound. Honestly, it is annoying. Like the OP, I have my gaming computer hooked up to a nice set of Klipsch Promedia speakers and yes, mousing over the buttons on the Game Menu is grating on the ears. Like another poster mentioned, this does in fact annoy me so much that I likewise drop a shortcut to the desktop and bypass it completely. If you really want to find out how annoying it can be, then try listening to some MP3's on your player, with some headphones, at a sound level you find suitable. Then, without adjusting your volume, open up the game menu, and mouse over some of the buttons. When you're recovered from your ear surgery, then drop back by here and let us all know what you think...[;)]
Graphics. I'll deal with this in three parts. This is an age-old bone of contention between gamers as toward how much "importance" should be placed on the graphical representation of the battlefield. My personal criteria for whether the graphics are "good" for a particular title hinge on three items. The first is "do the graphics clearly display the information important to the gamer, in a clearly readable fashion?" As I have not purchased the game, I cannot honestly speak with any level of authority on this, since I have absolutely no familiarity with the game engine.
The second question is "do the graphics suit my personal sense of aesthetics?" In my case, from the screenshots that I have seen, I'd have to say "No" - quite emphatically. I come from a more traditional boardgamer background, and the screenshots have all, without fail, "caused my eyes to bleed". This is strictly my own opinion, but for me, the colors are overly bright, and garish, and I could not possibly play this game for more than 5 minutes at a time. It is interesting to note here, that when we were developing TOAW III, and decided to incorporate one of the "brighter" sets of modified color tiles as the "standard set" for the release, some of our Beta/QA team felt the exact same way about our decision to change the comfortable and familiar graphics that we had all used for the last 8 years through the previous iterations of TOAW. Though for some tiles, the information being presented with the new tile sets was more clearly communicated, as a whole, the new set was substantially brighter. One tester even likened it to being "cartoonish". Thus, the decision was made to not only ship the game with the new tile set, but with the old one included. Matrix built into the package a graphics set switcher, along with a start menu shortcut, to make the job of switching back and forth, a seamless and effortless task. Which leads me to the third criterium...
How adaptable is graphics engine in being modified by the end user? This takes on several sub-categories. For instance, which aspect ratios are supported? Does the program recognize non-standard (i.e., non 4:3) aspect ratios? If it does, what other ratios are supported? Widescreen (16:10) is becoming an increasing large segment of the monitor market, both in desktops, as well as in laptops. Another case is, what resolutions are supported, by default? Does the game stretch, or scale the interface to suit different desktop aspect ratio and native resolution combinations, or does the burden to figure this out fall on the end user? Beyond the basic issue of aspect ratios and supported resolutions, a developer should also ask, "Am I giving the end user the tools with which to adapt the graphical display to one that he will find aesthetically appealing?" That is, can the end user swap out graphics files, and with a minimum of effort on a bare-bones graphical program, create new or substitute graphics for the game, that will suit his own personal sense of aesthetics? I think here, wheresoever possible to do so within the constraints of the game engine, the answer should be "Yes". In fact, I would consider it a "no-brainer" in this day and age of "mod-friendly" gaming. Whether or not Battlefront does this, again, I do not know, since I am not familiar with the game. Only with the general issue.
Thanks in advance for your "eye time", and thoughtful replies.
The second question is "do the graphics suit my personal sense of aesthetics?"
The entire issue of graphics is so personal that debating them endlessly on the forums (and there have been no fewer than three threads on this board devoted to the "bad unit graphics" or pixelated terrain maps) is rather futile. All of these threads reach the same conclusion: it all depends on your personal feeling. As it is nearly impossible to persuade anyone else to "like" a computer game they viscerally respond to negatively, these types of threads are pointless.
Mr. Mathews does raise a few good points regarding the use of graphics to clearly relate information. Yes, the manual does point out what the "red gremlins" and "blue dolphins" are, but these symbols should be intuitive within the game as well. While I love BF, I really don't know exactly what these symbols mean (I believe they represent flak interdiction that slows down initial paratrooper movement in the Market Garden scenario) and the graphics do not display them intuitively. As mentioned in other threads, more liberal use of tooltips and more extensive right click information could clear this all up. As it stands now, the only way to rectify this is not within the game's graphics, but in a "tutorial" made by JSS on this forum. The graphics do need to be altered to fit Mr. Mathews's first paradigm, as they really do not display the information in a clear and uncluttered way that does not require heavy reference to a sparse and slightly defective manual (lets face it, if I had not played Korsun's Pocket and the BiN demo, BF would be totally alien to me).
My last response to Mr. Mathews is... [:-] Shame on you for not playing BF or any of the DB series! If you were to merge the TOAW and DB systems you could probably make the UBER WARGAME [&o] (tm)! It would be the true Kwisatz Haderach of gaming! (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwisatz_Haderach)
Son of Montfort
"Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet!"
(Kill them all. God will know his own.)
I think the graphics are fine,between this and the Panther games stuff,thats all i need.They are wargames after all,the maps are fantastic the units are counters,and after reading the rules aout all the little numbers they convey the information fine,i dont think too many people read the rules to pc games much,they just charge right on in and it gets all to much for them.
I also thought that from the pre-release screens this game was just some rehash of the DB games.But this is a whole new engine,it has superb game play and for people like me who are more into board games it fits the bill perfectly,i have had it now for about 3 weeks and have played it every day,and i will have to eat my words about the price it is worth every cent.
thanks for the great game
Since I haven't bought BF yet but I do have both KP and BiN; I'm wondering with all things equal in hardware, is there any difference in the graphics between BiN/BiI and BF? ?? (regarding image quality ... not content)
Personally I never had a problem with KP/BiN graphics. Yes, they are more "pixelated" or whatever you want to call it vs. many of the other map based strategy games but I just adapted to it (especially if the game play is good). There is a lot of color in SSG games. Much more than any other game. It does make for a colorful screen and I suppose some people don't like that.
There's simply good and bad in every game I own. Its all just a matter of taste and opinions. I personally can conform to just about any interface if I enjoy playing the game. If the game is so convoluted in its User Interface to confuse or make information retrieval painful, I will lose interest. If the game is too bland or too color busy, I normally get over it and enjoy the game. (I own both kinds and I still play all of them from PzC to HttR to BiN to FG ... and on and on)
While I like the engine and have no problem with the look of the graphics, I do wish there was an 800x600 resolution. My old eyes get tired from straining at the somewhat small counters after a few hours. The one complaint that I have as far as the engine is concerned; and this goes for many games these days; is that it still uses the old IGO/UGO turn resolution instead of WEGO. I have never been able to truely enjoy any wargame at this scale that uses IGO/UGO since I played the V4V/W@W series so many years ago. That engine was certainly ahead of its time and is still, imo, the GOLD standard for operational wargames. I dearly wish that SSG would develope their engine to use WEGO or that Matrix would re-release the V4V/W@W series. I fear Combined Arms will never see the light of day.
"The fruit of too much liberty is slavery", Cicero
Some great comments and hopefully we can get a good discussion going.[:)]
BF (and the DB games for that matter) are fully modable. Looking into the possibilities of doing essentially dual graphics for my next big project. One would be SSG style colorful (which I like personally). One would have a more subtle color scheme (a la TOAW hues)... think this will be pretty easy.
Most of the OP comments are directed at SSG's included art and not the game engine (only true game engine issue here is the limited set of scales). I like the unit icons done for the DB series better than the BF (personal preference). BTW I did a direct comparison of the Tutorial scenario graphics vs the N. Afrika graphics that ship with TOAW3. Maps are equally pixalated at 2:1 zoom (TOAW uses more patterns, Tutorial map is more random). TOAW icons are 2x2 pixals larger than 1280x1024 BF icons. My Icon graphics are generally (and substantially) less pixalated than the TOAW icons. Clarity will be something I focus on even more given the discussion here.
Finally, I highly recommend you give either BF or BII a try! Lots of great game play concepts that could (should!) be included in further TOAW development.
Looking into the possibilities of doing essentially dual graphics for my next big project. One would be SSG style colorful (which I like personally). One would have a more subtle color scheme (a la TOAW hues)... think this will be pretty easy.
GREAT! You should look up GJK for those easy on the eyes muted graphics. He did excellent new terrain graphics for TOAW3. Does alot of vassal work on board games as well. Not sure I've seen him here, but he is at wargamer, gamesquad"SZO" or boardgamegeek I believe.
