In advance, I apologise if I appear to be nitpicking here or this is too long for someone to read. I'm a scientist type and matters of objectivity are very close to my heart. Since this is also a matter of personal interest, this evolved into a fairly long post, but at least I could organise these things in my head for later use
.
Lets see what we have here. I think this discussion is the typical result of a person who has seen some neat ideas in another genre asking why they are not used in his favourite genre? Being an open-minded person (I wish) I can understand the desire to develop the medium. But would this particular advancement of making the graphics 3D be good?
For a while, lets try to see what the ultimate goal is, the best possible result. Lets not mix chaos theory and butterflies into this but limit ourselves to a strictly limited European WW2 scenario. Now in this perfect game we would need to have a near atomic level of detail for everything going on. All the available factual details offered by historians are used and the rest are made up by the best conceivable expert system. So there are no problems of getting enough valid data or anything.
One could imagine a possibility of having free camera movement in this world although this would already upset some people because such a thing is far from real. If we, however, have this sort of freely observable virtual reality, one could ask what good it is? It provides nice visuals, one can go and see how his soldiers really fight, lots and lots of details? But what good does that really do for the game?
If I were going to play such a game, then, like with all situations where there is unnecessary detail - irrelevant to the decisions I must make, not irrelevant from other perspectives -
I'd really require tools for abstracting the situation. I would filter out factors until there remains only those that are appropriate for the decision I must make.
I would zoom out and try to look from a broader perspective. Then I would need tools to make my own markers, phase lines, notes of enemy positions, etc. I would make the decision and watch the result unfold reacting as necessary depending on the level I'm working at. Were I to continue making decisions at this particular level, I would actually only be interested in the abstracted level results because the details don't matter.
What I'm trying to say is, that for the gameplay,
the appropriate level of abstraction is not the most detailed one. It's the one where all the
unnecessary details are filtered out. Where you can fulfill your goal without distractions and with the minimal amount of work, so the fun is not lost in the mindless repetitive tasks. One could definitely make a game where part of the gameplay includes making said abstractions. And from time to time, it would be fun to revel in the amazing simulation and zoom to read the shoulder patches of your favourite unit. And to me it provides a level of fun knowing that seemingly random things happen for a real reason (it is random merely because the abstraction level you have chosen fails to explain the details that caused the situation but there is a real chain of events that caused it).
So that the game would not resemble real life and real work too much, I think it's advantageous to provide useful abstractions for the player so he doesn't first have to be an expert in military tactics to be able to discern the relevant matters. Quick question - how many think it is fun doing those abstractions in real life?
With this thought of providing some tools and abstractions we get to the various kinds of maps, pretty close to where we are now. The missing part is the ability to, once in a while, see the details and in many games the ability to make your own markers on the map. A miss I hope will be fixed.
The perfect situation is obviously too far out to be real in the next few years or even decades. The bleeding edge of graphics cards is still far from it. Arguably, the edge is at a point where you can do as pretty 3D graphics as you can paint 2D, but then the question is the available art resources, since
3D art takes much more work. Also the required level of technical detail for the simulation is far too much from many perspectives. I remember reading many posts on these forums from Paul Vebber where there is insufficient historical data for all systems (e.g. tanks in WW2) and educated guesses must be done to fill in the gaps.
The kinds of graphics in the first screenshot in this thread are not in what I'd call the path to the perfect situation. They are a branch to a different direction, which in my opinion is wrong. Ergo, I must oppose such a change. What I expect is to see good detailed simulations of warfare in all of its forms displayed with appropriate graphics. These
appropriate graphics both help me and reward me.
I don't think the kind of graphics you Kid are after, are of the kind that help me but are there to reward me. However, the issue of rewarding the player is quite subjective.
Pretty pictures are often a matter of personal preference and I have already stated some of mine that are critical of what has been shown. he graphics, in my opinion, should portray realistic detail and I get a huge turn-off when 1-1 correspondence with reality leaves the room.
From the utilitarian help perspective such graphics, viewing with as much objectivity as I can muster,
are not useful. The only use for 3D is then to show the lay of the land which is of concern mostly to tactical games.
The best case scenario for the immediate future I can see is that there are still different games for different people and needs. When I want to see the shoulder patches of my men, I'll fire up EYSA or maybe a semi-realistic FPS game. They will not be integrated any time soon with a grand strategy level WW2 game.
I have tried to analyse this desire for better graphics without too many business related concerns, important as they are in reality. I wish some day I'll be able to build some game with lots of unnecessary details because I want to see what it feels like. I'm actually experimenting with the needed abstraction and information management tools in my Master's thesis now and on my free time. However, I don't think it's sensible business to produce such simulations and put detail in places where nobody is going to look at.
Finally, I think the question of artistic resources and niche games has been discussed to the death many times. It's at best chicken and the egg but at worst the niche only attracts, in any case, a fraction of the potential of other kinds of games.
I already lost power once while writing this post so I better post it while I can and wait to see if there is any further discussion before I add anything :p.
.