So, what can we take from these reviews?

kbluck

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2003
Messages
707
Reaction score
0
Location
Folsom, CA
Country
llUnited States
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
 

CPangracs

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
1,589
Reaction score
2
Location
Within My Means
Country
llUnited States
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
 

kbluck

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2003
Messages
707
Reaction score
0
Location
Folsom, CA
Country
llUnited States
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:

CPangracs

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
1,589
Reaction score
2
Location
Within My Means
Country
llUnited States
kbluck said:
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.:D
 

kbluck

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2003
Messages
707
Reaction score
0
Location
Folsom, CA
Country
llUnited States
CPangracs said:
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.:D
:Reserving judgement pending further input:

Darn, no smilie for that.
 

Ivan Rapkinov

Harpoon Forum Moderator
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
1
Location
Australia
Country
llAustralia
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.
 

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
43
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
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.
 

kbluck

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2003
Messages
707
Reaction score
0
Location
Folsom, CA
Country
llUnited States
Redwolf said:
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
 

Pat Proctor

President, ProSim Company
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Messages
1,189
Reaction score
1
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
KB

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

Alkiviadis

Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2003
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Location
NYC
Country
llUnited States
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.
 

Cougar_DK

Former POA2 Thread Keeper
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
693
Reaction score
0
Location
Denmark, Farum
Country
llDenmark
Hi Curt, the last screenshot is that from the Afghanistan game? It looks wonderfull :smoke:
 

CPangracs

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
1,589
Reaction score
2
Location
Within My Means
Country
llUnited States
Cougar_DK said:
Hi Curt, the last screenshot is that from the Afghanistan game? It looks wonderfull :smoke:
Nope,...it's from another theater of war,...but you're not too far off, geographically speaking. ;)

Hope to have a press release soon.:D

Curt
 

Scully

Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2003
Messages
587
Reaction score
4
Location
Virginia
Country
llUnited States
Ivan Rapkinov said:
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.
I basically agree with Ivan on this...though I'd prefer to have some color on the maps.

Take care,
Brian
 

Ryan_ Murphy

Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2003
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Location
Atlanta, GA
Country
llUnited States
Curt,

Your "graphics comparison" is a definite must in any future upgrades. That is impressive and something that is a necessity at that scale.
 

dhuffjr

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jul 23, 2004
Messages
781
Reaction score
0
Location
Ohio
Country
llUnited States
The third map looks great. Is each terrain feature visiable modeled or is there some abstraction?

Dennis
 

Pat Proctor

President, ProSim Company
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Messages
1,189
Reaction score
1
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
The capability in the "War in Afghanistan" version of the ATF engine exist to model every building, but it comes at the cost of processing power, as every discrete building equates to a hit on processor cycles.

In know that, in "War in Afghanistan", we will model individual buildings in objective areas, but use "regions" to describe urban areas outside of those areas specific to the scenario. There are some upgrades to model the height, survivabilty, and visibilty advantages/disadvantages of buildings, as well.

So, the short answer is that there IS more detail to the terrain models than those in older versions of the ATF Engine.
 
Top