Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
This game keeps on trucking
Nerubian
Member Posts: 32
Ive never played this game but I remember it from back in the day. Wasnt it the 3rd mmo released after UO then AC?. The game had huge problems when it hit the shelves and people gave it 6 months at most.
Amazing its still going what, 8 years later?. UO and AC are still going aswell. I guess in the mmo genre the old cliche of they dont make them like they used to holds true.
Amazing its still going what, 8 years later?. UO and AC are still going aswell. I guess in the mmo genre the old cliche of they dont make them like they used to holds true.
Comments
The first version of this game has been released in 2001 and had a bad launch. But in the past years the devs have worked their *** off and created a complete new game with many new features, vehicles, graphics and stability. It is a complete different game now than it was 2001.
I'm playing this game since its release 2001, with short breaks. This game must have something...and for me its not the praphics!
-----------------------------------
Life is too short to play bad games.
I was also drawn to the whole mmorpg WW2 setting and thought that it became time a WW2 mmorpg came along so when i read about WW2(sorry just found out about the game last year), i decided to install the game and i was like "wow amazing people are able to play such a game and really amazing this game survived this long". The reason was because of all the positive post on several forums i really thought this game was cool.
This game might have dept but it is lacking dept anywhere as it comes to graphics dunno what some people are used to graphic wise but i've read this game started in 2001 ...well thats presicly how it felt ...a old game, sure maybe the tactics are nice but i'm the type of gamer that has to please both his eyes aswell sound and gameplay, i rather get back into Medal of Honor Allied Assualt then ever in such a louzy looking game wich was a real disappointment to see such a game still excist in 2007. Afcourse i understand if you still not be able to play the somewhat nicer looking games cause of having a low end system but seriously WW2 a good game??...might be so afcourse ....just absolutly not my kind of game, i like to move forward and evolve with games not go back intime..way back in time.
My experiance with the game is based on last december 2006 so i truly doubt that the game has made any kind of improvments in this last month.
I really hope that one day a WW2 mmorpg will look like BF1942 or CoD, have the real dept of a (old school mmorpg) but not again like WW2 online, sorry its a pure waist.
I know some of you might start flaming at me but honostly i don't care as this is my own opinion and i'm not forcing my opinion upon anyone just sharing my thoughts
Graphics...Is that all you look for in a game? You are obviously just an average run of the mill FPS shooter fanboy. The battlefield series has great graphics but there is no depth of gameplay and the game gets old faster than a box of cookies at a weight watcher meeting.
Battleground Europe (World War II online) is the best game I have ever played.
I really hope that one day a WW2 mmorpg will LOOK like BF1942 or CoD, have REAL DEPTH of a Old school mmorpg
this text was abit at the end of my former post inwich you had reacted and you must obviously have missed that . Would you have taken the time to actualy read my text you could not have made such a foolish comment.
Read first then make a comment doesn't make you look that foolish
Hey Thony,
Just a question here about the above statement. If you had your choice of really good graphics but very limited view distance or lousy graphics like BE and extremely far viewing distance which one would you perfer?
Reason I ask is I've read taht the lousy fx in BE is because they draw terrain out to 7000/8000meters and enemy are drawn 3000m for vehicles and 1000m out for infantry.
Now I think if the WWII game you play has big guns modeled, then you would perfer the extreme range viewing distance, right? Seems like a waste if you have a german 88 Anti tank gun modeled in game (or a Stug 75mm, or a Sherman 76mm, or a Destroyer's 5 inch gun) and you can only shoot enemy tanks 100-200 meters away max because of map limits.
For me, the great looking fx in a boxed city get old on me quick. Hence why I've been with BE for a long time now.
O and also flying bombers at 8000 ft above a ground battle and dropping bombs randomly in the middle of the enemy. Hehe thats good stuff too especially when i get a crazy kill like enemy sniper. I got to think that enemy sniper found a nice spot and is like WTF??? when he gets bombed.
http://www.wwiiol-pilots-manual.com/
Hey Thony,
Just a question here about the above statement. If you had your choice of really good graphics but very limited view distance or lousy graphics like BE and extremely far viewing distance which one would you perfer?
Reason I ask is I've read taht the lousy fx in BE is because they draw terrain out to 7000/8000meters and enemy are drawn 3000m for vehicles and 1000m out for infantry.
Now I think if the WWII game you play has big guns modeled, then you would perfer the extreme range viewing distance, right? Seems like a waste if you have a german 88 Anti tank gun modeled in game (or a Stug 75mm, or a Sherman 76mm, or a Destroyer's 5 inch gun) and you can only shoot enemy tanks 100-200 meters away max because of map limits.
For me, the great looking fx in a boxed city get old on me quick. Hence why I've been with BE for a long time now.
O and also flying bombers at 8000 ft above a ground battle and dropping bombs randomly in the middle of the enemy. Hehe thats good stuff too especially when i get a crazy kill like enemy sniper. I got to think that enemy sniper found a nice spot and is like WTF??? when he gets bombed.
Hia Slaman,
To answer your question i think viewing distance is very importent especialy on large battlefields.
But the thing is i'm well over 30y of age so i've seen (graphic wise) games like this many many times in the past and because i already play pc games for such along time a game like WW2 is just disappointing to me. I used to play games pure for its content regardless graphics but since i think about 4/5 years i constantly am upgrading my system pure to get into the newest and most exiting games.
Really i'm happy that some people enjoy the game its just not the game i thought it would be for me and we all should be glad that everyone has his own opinion else we all would be playing the same game and in the end that wouldn't be funny.
I bet that if WW2 online had the same tactics and gameplay as from what i read it has now but had graphic similair to lets say BF1942/COD3, it would be far more succesfull then it is.
People may call me a spoiled gamer in the way that i need everything in a game to be right graphics/gameplay/community(or atleast close to it, as perfect would never excist cause of every person having different taste)but people "can" never and "may" never call me a FPS fanboy as that is actualy a insult towards a full-time true mmorpg gamer wich i am (i know you did not say it but the respons post above did
cheers
Being 30 is just below the avarage age of a WWII Online player you young punk.
But first, the engine is old, but it still has several of the latest licence like SpeedTree v3 and so on, and the developers is working on a new Terrain Engine (TEII™) and a new Engine called Unity II™ so the WWII Online will eventually get an update soon™. However, parts of these is already slowly making it into the current game engine so it will be a slow transfer why it will be hard to say when the actual transfer will be as far as I understand.
So back to the reasons for the so called dated graphics. Consider BF and CoD, these games is just small shoebox games with the biggest maps of 2x2km. In CoD are they even smaller and often just a tub-game so to speak. And the visual range is just a few hundred meters, and sometimes even shorter in CoD. In other words the game world that the GPU has to calculate is very small (the numbers of triangles the GPU has to process is rather small).
Add to this that these games only allow a minor number of players on each server. Even though the later games allow 64 players on the same serve is most server only accept 32 players since the maximum of 64 players drags down the graphic and 64 playerson a small limited map soon feels crowed any way.
Then add the limited sound. To pump up the graphic has these games a quite poor sound engine since it handles a very limited number of sounds, and that these sounds can only be generated rather close to you (a few ten meters away). That means that you don't hear aircrafts in BF unless they are just upon you, why you don't hear a fella that fires on you if he is further away unless he's a few ten meters.
That isn't very realistic in my book. Neither is it realistic to have silent aircrafts that is unvisible when it flies a few hundred meters away so it can attack you on any side. So you is both blind and deaf for any attacking aircraft, and since the maps is so small will the pilot have your position pin. So he can circle you and decide to attak you one any side. And since you can't see or hear him will he have a good 75% to attack you on a blind side so to speak. It means you wont be able to react until he has passed you, and we are talking about an aircraft flying just one or two hundred meters away.
Compare this to WWII Online were we have a visual view of nearly 4000 meter (4km) on the ground, and 8000 meter in the air above 1500 meters altitude, and some 7000 meter on the surface. Hence strategic bomb planes can hit their targets at 8000 meter, not just 8000 feet. And all avatars draws at these distances, not only vehicles.
Now add that in WWII Online can there be an "unlimited number" of players in your clients "field of view" plus SpeedTree objects, plus often a far higher number of complexed buildings in your client's "field of view" then you ever will find in the games you meantion Thony (the numbers of buildings in each "field of view" in BF and CoD is rather small, and most of these buildings is very simple with a low number of triangles). Depending on your graphical setting can your WWIIOL-client see up to 128 players, and the minimum is 64.
All this objects (moving and flying avatars, SpeedTree objects and buildings) shall your CPU and GPU process, and this is a very demanding task for the clients who is flying since it is required from a "flying computer" to load several hundered players in a few seconds (not to meantion all the buildings and speedtree objects that also has to be loaded in a fly-by). But that's not all, we have lots more to deal with before you will get your screen fully updated.
Then do we have the sound. In WWII Online do we also have a great numbers of sound sorces, and the sound travels an exceptionel distance too compare to other games. All small arms fire is heard beyond 1000 meter (unless obsticles like a forrest or a big hill is preventing the sound to travel). Also all heavy artillery is heard up to 4km. And of course is the sound traveling with the "speed of sound".
We also hear the engines rumbling over the landscape, and all sounds has their own destinct signature why we can seperate an British rifle or ATG from a German or French dito etc etc. Same with the engines. You can hear if it is an enemy or a friendly tanks or truck that moves far off outside your visual range, or if that distant aircarft small as a dot in the distance is a friendly or an enemy aircraft. However this is something your client has to process through the CPU together with all the other stuff. So not only the visual stuff but also what you hear and don't hear has an impact on the graphics.
But it is even more then this. We shall not forget to meantion that in WWII Online is every single bullet and grenade a physical fast flying objective that follows the laws of ballistic. This means that besides all the avatars (hundreds of them) moving and flying, the Speedtree objects, the buildings with in your client's visual range is there alot of small fast flying objects in the area that your client need to calculate too through the GPU and CPU. As you realize by now is this quite demanding on your computer.
So by now will you proberbly realize that this game is actually on the cutting edge compare to BF and CoD regardless of how they look on your screen. In other words neither of those games is capable to do what WWII Online has managed for some years now.
Of course didn't WWII Online do all this when it was released. The game has since then been constantly upgraded to do more and more complex things. For instace did it reach the 128 player visual limit in december 2004 I think it was. SpeedTree was added around that time too. And so on.
But as you said, WWII Online isn't for everyone. Some prefer graphics before gameplay. I don't. I have played WWIIOL since 2002 and so far am I not bored yet, to the contrary. I have also played BF and CoD and CoD2 (not 3). I get bored with in a few minutes when I play the Multi-player version of these game. And that can I blame WWII Online for since none of them even remotely on par with this game. However I like the single missions in CoD, but as soon as I have played them through am I done with the game. That is not the case with WWII Online, the complexity and depth is so rich it's a blast.
Bummer.. too late
Thanks Sparre, but really you shouldn't have to
i truly understand the complexity of trying to creat a game that looks visual like a game like COD for example i fully aware of that and really understand what it takes to creat a game. I always thought that peop[le could make wishes, but still the technolgy has come along way so i bet one day we will be able to play the WW2 mmorpg i hope i like.
So again thanks for your time but maybe if i could expres meself abit better in english you would have noticed it wasn't needed to explain all this to me even tho i'm stil a young punk
ps i don't prefure graphics over gameplay, i want them equely as good
Often Im surprised that people complaining about low fps or lags - there were none of that problem when I was playing.
Also updates are painfully slow.But main reasons I quit after 5 months was
1) terrain -400x400m squares don't cut it, sorry. Biggest con for me.
2) CP centric game play. It's too repetitive. It needs fully independent and mobile armies, like IRL.
3) Lack of polish (can't expect more for like 6 ppl dev team )
4) lack of features (visible supply etc..)
The game is built on 800x800m cells, is that what you refer to? If that is an issue for you must you explain what you mean. How is that an issue? Really?
The only thing that is limited by the 800x800 cells, as far as I know, is that there can't be more then 10 hulks in each cell, and it's limited to that number so the hulks wont be a real FPS hog during big battles. (Btw, I don't know of any other game that has persistant hulks that you can blow up with a stachel or likewise and that stays in the game for 30 minutes unless new hulks appears).
2) TO&E is #1 on CRS todo list, and it is already slowly coming in. The first OIC features came in with v1.25 and we already have physical brigades in game. No other FPS game have ever had Physical units ingame before, and no other game has TO&E either. So I really don't know how this can be an issue either. We are talking cutting edge game development here if you ask me. CRS with their small team with a dozen men is doing what no other game developers has done so far. Give them a break will you,
3) As you said, there is so much a small team can't do, and the playerbase is damanding new stuff all the time the spoiled little sods.
4) This one is also on the todo-list. Will proberbly come as the next big thing after TO&E is in. And yet again, no other game has this feature so we are again talking cutting edge features here.
Why don't we ask us self why the big game houses with hundreds of coders, modelers et al don't bother to do a game similar to the game CRS has created and developed with their small but skilled team. If it is so easy to pull this off as some people claim, why hasn't the big boys done it already, and by so crushed CRS? That is what I constantly asking myself.
I have two alternative answers; either is the market not big enough to spend the money and CRS have themself an monopoly market. This is not an plausible answer though if you think of it. Every other FPS is a WWII game remember, and well done WWII game with the right Marketing budget and a well organised distributor in their back will it be the next WoW with at least a hundredthousand worldwide subscriber base.
The other answer is that the big boys don't know how to pull it off. Why? Since not a single game that I know of has the features and complexity that WWII Online have. And I don't limit this to just WWII games. No game in any genre (Space, Fantasy, War, you name it) has these features and can't be compared to WWII Online as far as I know (but I don't know everything, do I