Graphics very VGA-ish

[TheHellPatrol]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[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[;)].

[Erik Rutins]

I'm trying to understand what's bugging a few players so much, so I loaded up my BII and BIN installations and did a comparison. The main difference I could see is that some of the unit designations on the Battlefront counters are blurrier, though they are also somewhat bigger in terms of the font size. Is that the main issue or is something else about the unit counters bugging you?

Regards,

- Erik

[Ursa MAior]

The unchanged 80's look of the UI. The colors. Same with Harpoon. As simple as that. It was OK in its time. But not now.

[JSS]

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

The unchanged 80's look of the UI. The colors. Same with Harpoon. As simple as that. It was OK in its time. But not now.

This doesn't make a bit of sense to me. The BF UI is the smoothest and best looking of any game I know of...

[Ursa MAior]

Well SP WAW or WitP is leagues better. Still cant decide which bothers me more the look or that it is unchnaged.

[BlackSunshine]

The UI is fine. 
 
It's just the unit icons.  They arent as crisp as the other DB games.  Not sure how to explain it.  Only other thing I would like to see graphically is for the forest/woods CRT's to be a bit darker.
 
The game has grown on me and it's one of the best wargames out there.  At this point, I'm used to the graphics.

[Missouri_Rebel]

Yeah, it is more the blurrieness of the counters that I was talking about. Not a deal-breaker but definately a little more crisp would have been better for me. And forget about using the zoom..... way too blurry.

mo reb

[Erik Rutins]

Ursa,

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior
The unchanged 80's look of the UI. The colors. Same with Harpoon. As simple as that. It was OK in its time. But not now.

This looks nothing like an 80s interface or like Harpoon. I have to say this response didn't help at all.

Regards,

- Erik

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel
Yeah, it is more the blurrieness of the counters that I was talking about. Not a deal-breaker but definately a little more crisp would have been better for me. And forget about using the zoom..... way too blurry.

Ok, so it sounds like this really comes down to the change in style on the unit counters, that makes more sense. The maps seems very nice to me and the interface itself is just fine and very similar to the DB interface, which was well received.

Regards,

- Erik

[Missouri_Rebel]

Yeah, the map is great and the UI is simply beautiful to me. All of the UI's colors for the various icons compliment each other to make what I think is the best looking in the industry.

mo reb

[goodwoodrw]

Ok, so it sounds like this really comes down to the change in style on the unit counters, that makes more sense. The maps seems very nice to me and the interface itself is just fine and very similar to the DB interface, which was well received.

Regards,

- Erik
[/quote]

Yes, is the short answer to that, the icons are the major concern, even running the game at 1024 x 768 the icons are too small to read info clearly, so improving the style of the icons wouldn't help, they can't made any bigger or they would flow over into the next hex. the size of the icons seem to be of equal size of those in COTA at 1280 x 1024 resolution. I don't know much about programing, but itappears the whole map is a smaller scale. The hexes are rather small. the text is small, but the problem is the colour of text in relation to the background. I want to play this game, but why should have to go and buy a new 20 inch monitor so I can see the icons.