How important are graphics to a wargame?

[Dr Zaius]

This is an old debate, but it's time we take a look at it again. Graphics cards have now evolved to the point that horespower is no longer much of an issue.

Also, you may want to take a look at an older article in the Warfare HQ articles section about graphics. It's an interesting read.

 

[Fading Captain]

I voted seven. I've never been the type of gamer that buys a game for graphics (it's all about gameplay), but even I have to admit that some wargames have graphics that make me wince. Playing a wargame shouldn't involve an imaginary trip back to 1985 to justify the graphics. Sometimes I ask myself, in a hex based wargame how hard is it to create a decent map and counters?

TOAW meets my requirements for graphics--although I've learned through time that the graphics for this game are actually quite good compared to other hex-based wargames. Get the graphics right for a map and counter game and the graphics can stand up for quite some time--which I think is the case with TOAW.

 

[John Paul]

I'd say a 4.To me graphics don't really matter if a game is good,though i also don't want to be staring at featureless blobs.In my opinion too many games,not just wargames,sacrifice some playibility just so people can ooh and aah at the pretty pictures.

 

[Tzar]

I entirely share Fading Captain's opinion on this. But I voted 6, since I can live with graphics that are just a tad lower than average for wargames. A good example of this is the Panzer Campaigns serie from HPS. Most wargamers seem to find the graphics of the serie too simplistic and not enough detailed (especially since there are no data on the icons), but I got used to them pretty fast so it doesn't bother me.

I'm all for upbeat and shiny graphics, but not at the expense of gameplay quality and re-playability. In fact, I would like the designers spend more time on AI than graphics, given the choice.
I dream for the day when the PO in a wargame will play as well as today's chess programs

 

[Deltapooh]

Graphics sometimes is designed to keep you from nodding off. Wargames often require a higher degree of situational awareness. You're so busy fight the battle, looking for opportunities, and considering your next move, that you don't have time to stand around marvel at the shiny scenery. Games like Ghost Recon rely on graphics to obscure the utter ignorance of the AI. Just when UBI thinks you're getting bored, they release another mission pack that you must pay $20 for that has more scenery, but the same ignorant AIs.

I agree with Tzar. I would much rather have improved AIs, re-replayability, and improved controls. If I want to gaze at scenery, I'll just grab GR or whatever and play that for a few minutes.

 

[Marko]

7 or 8.

 

[Dr Zaius]

Okay, since we're talking about the Panzer Campaigns series I'll put my two cents in. I think the designers ought to be ashamed of themselves. As others have already stated it isn't necessary for a hex-based wargame to have spectacular graphics, but on the other hand the graphics are fairly easy to do for these games. The Panzer Campaigns games are a fairly significant step backwards from John Tiller's earlier efforts on the Campaign Series titles. I just don't see any excuse for the extremely poor graphics all of these games share. It would be a little easier to accept this shortcoming but has anyone noticed that these titles only cover a single battle? Also, the price never seems to drop on HPS games.

The Panzer Campaigns and Modern Campaigns systems are fairly decent systems, but they suffer from some exceptionally poor design and marketing decisions. The lack of a map editor is a purposeful omission that is done to hamstring the system and force the player to buy additional titles. If you buy all the titles in the series you have an investment of 300-400 dollars! That's getting into the realm of professional software suites such as Microsoft Office and way beyond the normal price range of any other wargame system. Now I'm off subject...

We no longer live in a PC age of zero-sum features. There is no need to sacrifice gameplay or features for graphics. That's a red herring from the early '90s. Any reasonably talented graphic designer can whip up hex based graphics that are fairly high quality. If I am going to stare at something for hours and hours on end, it better not look like it was programmed in 1984! That's not acceptable and wargamers shouldn't be singled out for this "good enough" treatment. We need to demand more from developers and publishers. Don't tell me the wargame market is too small to support high sales volume and all that crap. Combat Mission is selling just fine. Take a look at Sudden Strike. This doesn't qualify as a wargame in my opinion, but it does demonstrate what can be done with a little effort in the graphics department.

 

[Rince]

I agree, the graphics of the PC series are ugly as hell, still I love the game!
I guess most grognards play the game before they judge, but if the wargames industry wants to survive (because one of these days we "old" grognards will be history) they have to polish the look of their games.

Just a quote from my nephew (age 14), computer-game freak playing every game he can get hold of, when having a look at TOAW: "waouw...did you program this yourself? Or did you really pay for that?"

Ok, I told him not to buy something by the looks of it (except women ) but let's face it, good looking games sell better than ...well, our games.

 

[Aries]

Looks like I picked the popular vote of 7.

Graphics have worth, but they have to have purpose.

Better graphics just for the sake of it is no justification.

I think Strategic Command is a fine game, and the graphics are just plain bland really.

I think Steel Panthers is a fine game, and being 2d has not harmed it in any way.

I think Operational Art of War has a fine map image, cute 3d animations are really just a waste though.

Currently the trend towards fancy 3d rendered real time games has no grab on me. Large 3d images don't excite me at all.

I don't play wargames for visual needs. It's ok if they are possible, but don't expect me to pat you on the back for them.

 

[Rince]

what graphics could look like !!

have a look at these graphics, that's the way it should be...

http://www.supremeruler2010.com/srscreenshots.htm

:joy:

 

[Aries]

Does look appealing.

I am sure there will be those qualifying the game as yesterdays look in concept even still though.

But I find no immediate fault with it.

 

[Rince]

yeaph, you can't do it right for everyone, and I did really only mean the map graphics, forgot to include that.
I guess (and I mean it) changing the maps of COW into these satellite like images shouldn't be too difficult.
The one negative point will surely be that it is more difficult to make out higher ground and the vegetation, but that could be countered easiest with a hex-info zone on the menu panel or (more complicated) with a zoom-in possibility to check out the landscape.

I woul also be lucky if that good-old hexgrid map could definitely be changed into something a bit more realistic.

 

[Tim]

For me the graphics for Tacops and TOAW are just fine. A game like Ghost Recon or Steelbeasts or CMBB you need good graphics. For you are viewing the world in 3d.