Page 1 of 2 12 Last

Thread: 4. What would you improve in the graphical presentation of the game?

4. What would you improve in the graphical presentation of the game?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    2,400

    4. What would you improve in the graphical presentation of the game?

    Hey all, here's today's.

  2. #2
    i think the "graphical presentation" is OK at the moment. whit the actually graphic you can play the game whit lower systems also.
    the animation is good and individual!
    ok heard some ppl ,they say "add birds ,add fishes add add add" but its not good if you can play this or the next game only whit 5 ghz+ cpu´s or gforce 8800 ultra cards.
    at the moment some ppl here have problems whit the FPS ,dont add many more otherwise the game is for high end cpu´s only!!
    if you can change the weather to rain for example ,this take much more performance.
    night battles could be cool and dont need more performance.

    AKAGI

  3. #3
    Well I would of liked to see better physics. For instance when a plane hits the water it's not just the same canned animation, but rather breaks into millions of pieces differently every time. (like the physics they use for damage in car games like dirt/froza). If I shoot at a plane I would like to see holes where I shoot, pieces fall off, etc. Maybe depending on what gets damaged effects the planes speed/maneuverability etc.

    Same for ship damage, If you get some big hits pieces of the ship break off (see them floating in the water) along with fiery explosions. I'd like to see better graphics overall. I love BSM, but it felt sometimes like a Xbox game rendered in HD. I'd like to see truly next gen graphics. Remember PC's, 360's are running 2/3 cores and both platforms have some bad ass GPU's. 360 is pretty powerful and for those with PC's not that strong you have graphic settings.

    This game has massive maps though and it's understandable that you can't go nuts with graphics, but I think some things can be improved like lighting, shadows, textures, etc.

    Overall though BSM was not that bad and if the developers end up using the same engine I can live with it.

  4. #4
    4. What would you improve in the graphical presentation of the game?

    This is not a high priority issue for me. You could leave things as they are in this regard, and spend all the time on improving the game in all the other areas we have already discussed, and I would be happy.

    I think that improving strategic and tactical aspects of the game is far more valuable than making things look better as they blow up, or making the palm trees sway in the breeze, etc... If it can be done with the computing resources available and not take away from the other gameplay items, then yeah it would be nice. But it's a bottom of the wish-list item for me.

    The only area of this that would make things directly more interesting is more varied weather/time of day matches. As long as this had an impact on strategic/tactical game play. But I even rate this weather improvement a lower priority than improved strategic and tactical play gameplay.

  5. #5
    In some areas of the game, the graphics are lush and detailed. In others, (take "The Coral Sea" for example) they are bland, flat and unappealing.

    This game cannot benefit from complex architecture and detailed scenery like most: some battles just have to be in the middle of fathoms of ocean. A really big challenge, graphically, will be to improve the horizon line and give the sea life. There must be waves, there must be variable weather systems, there must be destroyers bobbing up and down against the chop. Particurarly harsh weather systems in some areas of the map could actually *damage* smaller ships, throwing them aboat and causing flooding damage. I'd like to see a 24 hour clock system, with variable time acceleration too, dusk -> night battles would be cool.

    The damage modelling too, could be better. As someone said above, some chunks and holes on planes would be nice to see : take a look at Microsoft's Combat Flight Simulator : and that was done on very limited hardware by todays standards indeed. This applys even more so to ships, lets see some crumple damage, lets see some holes, and decals caused by hits to the vessel. I'd like to see some really satisfying graphical effects when a ship goes under. Also, a ship might *not* go under straight away : prolong the sinking, make it explode and be completely on fire - a smoking wreck which lingers for 5-10 minutes.

    I was happy enough with the landscaping, but next-generation graphics could greatly add to the appeal : rocky shore lines, big choppy breakers against cliffs - that kind of thing.

    My most important point of all though - keep it all scalable! Great graphics help immersion, but keeping your low-end users in mind really benefits the game in the long run.

    -Lexxy

  6. #6
    Battlestations: Midway Lieutenant Commander
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,513
    Overall I think the graphics presentation is really spot on. If anything I would like to see more varied water effects. (moderate to rough seas like was seen in the old tech trailer) Also i would like to mention that when a ship is going down (In the case I am thinking was the SP and it was a sinking tanker) the people were still walking the deck and walked into and out of the water. Maybe have people jumping overboard which prob will kill my frames.

  7. #7
    I think overall the graphic of the game is OK, this is one of it's strengths (I'm talking about PC). The other day I found myself circling around the main battlespot in a plane just to enjoy the sight of the battle "down there" as the ships were fighting... It was spectacular view.
    The question of graphic improvement however, is a valid one since BSM2 is going to come out a few years from now and what is (was) OK now won't make the cut then
    Also in these days there is the whole "hype" around DX10 so I would assume the DEVs would want to upgrade the graphic engine so the label can be put on the box: it will run better in DX10

    If something HAS to be improved I totally agree to keep it scalable (at least on PC, XboX360 is a different matter). I personally prefer effects that has something to with the game experience beyond being "eye candy".

    Some weather and water effects could really spice up the battle and indeed for smaller ships maneuvering in heavy rain or storms could cost a few guns or equipment --> damage.

    Somebody said it earlier but my preference for planes for example is the 1st person cockpit view.

    One thing that was noted by the critics is the water splashes of the ship's shells. Those explosions should be improved so they look more realistic. I would even venture to say that if a ship gets splashed all around at least the gun's aim view should get blurry for a while (water vapor) so aiming is a bit more difficult.

    Ships
    --> the look of the ships are awesome but can we get rid of the crew on the ship? Two reasons: 1. they are clearly out of scale relative to the ship. 2. It takes away the very serious "real" look and feel of the ship.
    --> relative scale of the units - I hope it can be addressed so BBs or CVs look and feel much more robust compared to a DD.

    Planes - my impression is that the planes are much bigger that they should be, however it could be a gameplay compromise so we have better chances shooting at them with AA?

    Last - for me the visuals include the map screen as well. That has to be re-designed. It is more game "mechanics" but the map screen should accommodate more feedback and functions for strategic management, I might even say we could use an angled "semi-3D" type of map and instead of the "RADAR" a mini-map

  8. #8
    Battlestations: Midway Lieutenant Commander
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,513
    Oh, and I almost forgot. Depth charges needs water spouts!

  9. #9
    On a system survey taken by VALVe over at Steam, 4% of total users had DX10 capable hardware, and only 2% of those had Windows Vista to run it on. Both items are required for DirectX 10 support.

    DirectX 10 would be a bad move for this game.

    -Lexxy.

  10. #10
    I am with Chip on this one. water effects would add content and graphical presentation to the game.

    I also feel that damage to planes and ships would be great to see. As It3llig3nc3 has already said. This game will come out in a few years time and by then Graphics will have moved on. I feel the game should repesent that fact and show improvments in the main areas.

    Sea. (inc water splashs from shells and depth charges)
    Planes (inc cockpit view)
    Ships (inc bridge view)
    Damage effects.

  11. #11
    Originally Posted by Lexxy
    On a system survey taken by VALVe over at Steam, 4% of total users had DX10 capable hardware, and only 2% of those had Windows Vista to run it on. Both items are required for DirectX 10 support.

    DirectX 10 would be a bad move for this game.

    -Lexxy.
    I sent you a PM.

    My points:
    1. why does it matter what is the situation NOW if the game won't be on the market before 2009? There might even be DX11 by then. Also DX10 is typically an OPTION in the graphic code-path. Many games TODAY utilizing DX9 does not necessarily require it, Valve's SOURCE engine under the famous Counter Strike: Source have a DX8 codepath for example.

    2. BS:M exists on two platforms: PC & Xbox360. Microsoft's effort to allow PC & XboX360 players onto the same platform is a HUGE potential for this title in the future. ( I say this to highlight the Microsoft "buldozer" for Vista as nobody is sure that if this function is going to get enabled on XP later... ...my say it won't since Microsoft's prime interest is to migrate everybody over to Vista and collect the high revenue)

    Eyes on the horizon! not on the ground front of us! Please.

  12. #12
    Okay, for the 360, it really isn't a big issue for me. That doesn't mean I could care less though.

    I would like to see a bit sharper graphics on planes. Maybe the sun reflecting off of some metal parts, or something like that. The ships could do a bit better easily by giving same classed ships like the fletcher on Coral Sea a different paint job. On a mpa like coral, it would makes things seem better if not every one looked alike. You could add to realism and you wouldn't see me whining either! (Less, well, xbox-ish graphic and more 360 graphics)

    I'm not sure if this qualifies as graphics, but it would be nice to be able to see the bottom of the ocean in shallow water in submarines instead of surfacing.

    I wouldn't worry to much about ground vehicles and such, because we really don't look at those too often. Take Ace Combat as an example. AC5 had amazing looking planes, yet a tank looked like a block on the ground with a pole.

    Regardless what you do to the graphics, even if you leave them the same, I' sure it will turn out fine.

  13. #13
    lol I'm doing well for PM's this week. I shall write a reply.

    @Int3llig3nc3
    Technology does move quickly, you're quite right. Being able to run it on older tech is also beneficial - but this doesn't always happen. As for the source engine, the support through 7, 8 and 9 was greatly appriciated by the community and myself. When I first purchased the game, I myself relied on DX7 compatibility. There is a lot of heated debate over this topic, and I'm currently in the lobby of those who are waiting a little longer to jump on the bandwagon. I'm not sure if Microsoft are currently allowing games to be both DX10 and DX9 friendly either, the recent fuss with Halo 2 shows this. Surely if the developers had a choice the game would work on XP anyway, if it was so easily illegally patched. As time progresses, so will my opinion on DX10. However, as i've said many times while defending my position in the past over this, great graphics does not need imply cutting edge technology.

    I want to see a large, diverse multiplayer community. If DX10 were implemented, i feel it would be essential for legacy support to promote this. Please consider your suggestion. I am looking into the future and trying to remain balanced with my argument, honestly.

    As for cross platform play, I'd like to see it happen. Can only be a good thing to bring the communitys together.

    On a more topic related note, the artillery tracers seem a bit.. odd - transparent drawn lines in the sky. Maybe this could look a little different/improved?

    -Lexxy.

  14. #14
    Battlestations: Midway Lieutenant Commander
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,513
    Originally Posted by Lexxy
    On a more topic related note, the artillery tracers seem a bit.. odd - transparent drawn lines in the sky. Maybe this could look a little different/improved?

    -Lexxy.
    I would like the option to turn those off.

  15. #15
    Graphics are pretty impressive generally imho for BSM.

    Maybe could be a bit more development of Physics as mention by many above, plus a few more diverse damage animations for ships like breaking in half or rolling over, or critical damage ie. magazine hits ..im thinking the Hood.

    Engine hits in a plane could have oil spatter across the screen like water drops do.

    Also a small one but camera shake and water splashes (if flooding) should show when your in damage control station, so you feel those shells landin above, and your socks get wet when the torps hit.

    Plus a few more camera options like observe mode for allies ships, bridge view where u drive with no guns. (ai does all shootin) and maybe AA view for airfields like CV's.

    Maybe i was thinking as a toggle on/off Realism option the 3D view for subs and depth charge position. So you can play as it is now in BSM or without any 'magic view' sub needs 2 use map (maybe an enahced zoomed in map ) or periscope for visual, DD uses sonar target/ map. Similar on/off options could be for Realistic damage, flying etc. So giving people with either taste a choice.

    But apart from the few improvemnet mentioned above i think this engine is good an could just be developed/refined to make a kick ass BSM2. I would prefer the main effort of production being on improving gameplay and content as the visuals at moment are pretty nice.

    I gotta say DIrect X 10 to me seems a bad idea.. BSM is a great engine and hust needs to be modded to make an amazing game. If it aint broke dont fix it.

    Also thru the amazing powers of editting i have to agree with sith below me
    GamePlay always greater importance than graphics, especially with a naval sim as it has a particualr type of salty types who are your main fan base.

  16. #16
    I always found the graphics low-end for 3rd Generation(xbox360) but it wasn't why I played the game. The Gameplay is what attracts me, if I have to sacrafice Graphics for gameplay then so be it.

    That being said...Having more varied explosions would be nice, especially since we're zoomed in a lot and can see the ships up close a fair amount of the time.

    The Weather Effects and Waves will add a nice touch.

    More animation when the Big Guns fire (Smoke, flash, water rippling).

    More Variations in Ships sinking (breaking up, bow first , stern first, roll over and hull stay visiable for awhile, different amount of time to sink, Having a Sinking Firery Wreak in the middle of an engagment would add an obsticle to manouvering and smoke to visibilty impairment)

  17. #17
    Originally Posted by Sith Darthfoxx
    I always found the graphics low-end for 3rd Generation(xbox360) but it wasn't why I played the game. The Gameplay is what attracts me, if I have to sacrafice Graphics for gameplay then so be it.

    That being said...Having more varied explosions would be nice, especially since we're zoomed in a lot and can see the ships up close a fair amount of the time.

    The Weather Effects and Waves will add a nice touch.

    More animation when the Big Guns fire (Smoke, flash, water rippling).

    More Variations in Ships sinking (breaking up, bow first , stern first, roll over and hull stay visiable for awhile, different amount of time to sink, Having a Sinking Firery Wreak in the middle of an engagment would add an obsticle to manouvering and smoke to visibilty impairment)
    I forgot! Waves would makes this game soooo much cooler. I also forgot to mention about the explosions.... and planes breaking up into a million peives... and... well... a lot of things.

  18. #18
    I'm all for the idea of lingering hulks in the water. Very atmospheric.

    -Lexxy.

  19. #19
    Yeah, more "living" water would be nice. I just would like to emphasize the need that if it happens it is not for it's "own" but to impact the game and the player.
    So for me the key is to have the environment interact with the playing units.

  20. #20
    Originally Posted by Lexxy

    [...]

    @Int3llig3nc3
    Technology does move quickly, you're quite right. Being able to run it on older tech is also beneficial - but this doesn't always happen. As for the source engine, the support through 7, 8 and 9 was greatly appriciated by the community and myself. When I first purchased the game, I myself relied on DX7 compatibility. There is a lot of heated debate over this topic, and I'm currently in the lobby of those who are waiting a little longer to jump on the bandwagon. I'm not sure if Microsoft are currently allowing games to be both DX10 and DX9 friendly either, the recent fuss with Halo 2 shows this. Surely if the developers had a choice the game would work on XP anyway, if it was so easily illegally patched. As time progresses, so will my opinion on DX10. However, as i've said many times while defending my position in the past over this, great graphics does not need imply cutting edge technology.

    I want to see a large, diverse multiplayer community. If DX10 were implemented, i feel it would be essential for legacy support to promote this. Please consider your suggestion. I am looking into the future and trying to remain balanced with my argument, honestly.

    [...]

    -Lexxy.
    Basically my feeling is that the "reputation" of DX10 is not as good in everybody's mind as I believed.
    I built my "case" on assumptions that could be debated - and you point out quite well one weakness: the fact that DX10 is not backward compatible, so in order to provide programs that can run on older standards some extra efforts are required.
    In my mind I see enough "natural" breaks that would force producers NOT to do exclusive DX10 game releases they are interested in selling as much copies as possible. While DX10 is going to be a major "selling feature" for gaming enthusiasts without DX9...8... support mass volume of sales won't be possible for a while.
    It is too bad that Microsoft is setting up the stage demonstrating a "force of choice" with HALO2 - however I truly believe no other game publisher can afford to do that without severe losses in reputation and sales.

    I'm not an expert in programming DX10 or DX9, however what I know about this technology is that DX10 gives much more freedom programming the visual rendering effects than its predecessors - but I assume (right or wrong) that an elimination of the extra features and a backward "translation" is possible. After all today on PC there are so many code-paths exists inside the games (32/64 bit, Intel/AMD special code sets, multi core...), so one more wouldn't significantly increase complexity.

    All in all I believe the combination of my suggestions and your considerations would create a good balance: DX10 is a must, but only if it is not the only option to run the game.

    As for the XboX360 - it's a different matter. I'm quite sure the graphical "engine" and programming of that box is quite different than the PC standard. Besides we're not sure what is going to happen with the "console war" in the next two years. We just have all the players in the ring and God knows only which company is going to try to pull some stunts to take the lead...?

  21. #21
    I agree with a lot of the things above - I only play on the 360 (my wife is the PC gamer in the family) but I would like to see sharper graphics, more realistic battle sounds/animations and landscape

    marine life would add a touch of realism - sharks, fish, gulls, et cetera - needless to say the sounds of battle would cause them to flee, but when you're just on your way somewhere, perhaps

    I really like the idea of being able to "see" the bottom in shallow water - that was one thing I really didn't like about subs, is the force surface, and how uneven the shallows are. Example: on Sibuyan Sea there are shallows that you can enter and stay at depth two or three, and on the other side of the map it will force you to surface before you even reach the shallows on the tac map - I'd like some way to know where the line is , and perhaps the graphical addition could accomplish that (though a fathometer would work as well)

    I would also like more crew representation. Bodies in the water after artillery hits, men runnign about the decks preparing for combat, men fleeing in life boats from a doomed ship

    but the bottom line is I'm not willing to sacrifice good gameplay for flash - if the things we're brainstorming can be safely incorporated without hurting the stellar gameplay then fine, but otherwise I can live without them

  22. #22
    You know, I just thought of something. I'm watching dogfights right now in the History Channel, and it is the Episode entitled "Death of the Japanese Navy", the episode that shows how the Japanese Centre Force was defeated. I would like to see graphics like that!

  23. #23
    Battlestations: Midway Lieutenant Commander
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,513
    Put it on a PS3... speaking of which a PS3 version is neeed.

    Shockwave on water from main guns firing and have more of a fireball/flash from teh main guns.

    Like this


  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    25
    What would you improve in the graphical presentation of the game?

    While graphics are not critical to making a game better or more fun, it is like icing on a cake. Hopefully all the hard work done for BS:M created a foundation that can be further built upon graphically. I post these comments knowing this is a wish list and not items I expect/demand. And again, much of how I feel has been mentioned very well already.

    Atmosphere/mood enhances experience. Heading into battle in these "Steel" Monsters is like a giant slower moving version of the Gunfight at the O.K Corral. These are huge showdowns.

    • More dramatic explosions, crumpling, damage in general, sinking animations, planes breaking up in different ways, ships running aground and staying there, ships that sink in shallows stay there. Crew scrambling the decks when enemy ship in range and then only at Battlestations when engaged.

    • All times of day. Perhaps in accelerated real time. MP match or SP level starts late afternoon continues on to sunset/twilight.

    •I know it's taxing, but the more smoke that could linger from Flac, damaged/crashing planes and ships in serious peril would add to the atmosphere. Also a ship on fire is a good visual for location if "fog of war" is enhanced.

    • Weather (lots of good ideas out there already)

    • SOUND. My Sub Woofer wants to rattle some windows. Give it the chance it deserves.

    Honestly, look no further than the "START" screen for the current game....

    The fire blasting from the cannons, the rust on the ship, the waves, the dynamic color of the time of day, smoke trailing from the plane...it's all there. More of that on top of the current build is all WIN!

    The following image of the Yorktown billowing smoke has that feel. Imagine it in color and in motion.

    http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/...Japan-57.2.jpg

  25. #25
    Originally Posted by sblendo
    What would you improve in the graphical presentation of the game?

    While graphics are not critical to making a game better or more fun, it is like icing on a cake. Hopefully all the hard work done for BS:M created a foundation that can be further built upon graphically. I post these comments knowing this is a wish list and not items I expect/demand. And again, much of how I feel has been mentioned very well already.

    Atmosphere/mood enhances experience. Heading into battle in these "Steel" Monsters is like a giant slower moving version of the Gunfight at the O.K Corral. These are huge showdowns.

    • More dramatic explosions, crumpling, damage in general, sinking animations, planes breaking up in different ways, ships running aground and staying there, ships that sink in shallows stay there. Crew scrambling the decks when enemy ship in range and then only at Battlestations when engaged.

    • All times of day. Perhaps in accelerated real time. MP match or SP level starts late afternoon continues on to sunset/twilight.

    •I know it's taxing, but the more smoke that could linger from Flac, damaged/crashing planes and ships in serious peril would add to the atmosphere. Also a ship on fire is a good visual for location if "fog of war" is enhanced.

    • Weather (lots of good ideas out there already)

    • SOUND. My Sub Woofer wants to rattle some windows. Give it the chance it deserves.

    Honestly, look no further than the "START" screen for the current game....

    The fire blasting from the cannons, the rust on the ship, the waves, the dynamic color of the time of day, smoke trailing from the plane...it's all there. More of that on top of the current build is all WIN!

    The following image of the Yorktown billowing smoke has that feel. Imagine it in color and in motion.

    http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/...Japan-57.2.jpg
    couldnt agree more.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last