Eye candy in wargames

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

I think good clear graphics are very important, but with good I
certainly do not mean 3D models and fanzy animations. Usually when there
is discussion about eye candy some people turn discussion into two
opposing choices. First is that graphics doesn't matter at all or you
want animated tanks running on strategic map where Europe is divided
into three areas.

But it is not that simple. I for example couldn't never get into TacOps
because it just didn't look nice. But on other hand I would be very
happy to play game where units would be just colored boxes, if those
boxes looked nice and fit into their environment.




--
jari k

remove unnecessary parts of address to make it work

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Major H <tacops@mac.com> wrote in news:BE8D1DDA.7E80A%tacops@mac.com:

>> Maybe it's a case of wargamers consciously claiming that eye candy
>> doesn't matter, but their subconsciousness playing a nasty trick on
>> them ?
>
> Cleavage sells but I am still not going to add to the TacOps splash
> screen a well endowed female Spec4 in a sweat wet T-shirt.

So, you've already given some thought to the question where in TacOps you
could get away with it ...

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <1114088472.410267.327050@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...

> Ok - so forget about the "time saved" factor, but how about costs ? Are
> eye-candy level graphics worth the additional cost ?
>
> Well, I'm starting to think that to a certain extent they are.

The two phrases that your question turns on are "eye-candy level" and
"additional cost," and how we define those terms is going to inform our
decision.

TACOPS is (sorry Major) fairly ugly. HTTR is adequate but not glorious.
DANGEROUS WATERS is very, very pretty.

I have no idea what "additional costs" were involved in making HTTR look
better than TACOPS, nor how much effort was lavished to make DW look so
very, very pretty. But my suspicion is that the graphics in HTTR didn't
cost so very much more than TACOPS[1]. In other words, HTTR uses little
blocks of graphics that look like forests, while TACOPS uses twisty
green lines that appear to have been scrawled with a Binney & Smith
crayon. I like HTTR's look better, but it can't have broken the bank to
make the field green in HTTR instead of leaving it white like TACOPS.
Conversely, I suspect that the developers of DW spent considerable time,
effort, and money in making it look so nice.

So what I would say is that something like HTTR probably represents the
*optimal* compromise between making the graphics adequate enough that a
potential buyer doesn't go "bleagh" when he sees a screenshot, and
expending significant resources (which, after all, are probably zero-
sum-gained with *something*) on pretty graphics that don't impact
gameplay.

[1] I'm putting aside any strictly *mapping* decisions that have actual
impact on the fundamental game system, and just looking at pure
aesthetic elements.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Most Republicans skipped the hearing, leaving Democrats largely
unchallenged as they assailed Bolton's knack for making enemies
and disparaging the very organization he would serve."
- Dana Milbank, Washington Post

"Uh, Dana? I'm pretty sure the organization Mr. Bolton is supposed
to be serving is *America*."
- Giftzwerg

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Giftzwerg wrote:

> So what I would say is that something like HTTR probably represents
the
> *optimal* compromise between making the graphics adequate enough that
a
> potential buyer doesn't go "bleagh" when he sees a screenshot, and
> expending significant resources (which, after all, are probably zero-
> sum-gained with *something*) on pretty graphics that don't impact
> gameplay.

Another aspect is that developers can choose to make the graphics
moddable - Hubert Cater made "adequate" graphics for Strategic Command
1, the fanbase turned it into something nearly perfect in my eyes
(dropshadows, prettier icons, ...)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On 21 Apr 2005 06:01:12 -0700, "eddysterckx@hotmail.com"
<eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"I don't do eye candy" - Major H. in the strategic ng to someone
>complaining about the "1993 graphics" of TacOps.

Yes, that be me, and I just posted back to the Major that eye candy
sells. :-)

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <ot5g61prf25v4lfq74fvpghqn3m938rrn4@4ax.com>,
ae@invalid.email says...

> >"I don't do eye candy" - Major H. in the strategic ng to someone
> >complaining about the "1993 graphics" of TacOps.
>
> Yes, that be me, and I just posted back to the Major that eye candy
> sells. :-)

Eye candy sells ... *once*.

I've bought *three* versions[1] of TACOPS from Major H.

[1] V1.0 I didn't have, IIRC. Mac only?

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Most Republicans skipped the hearing, leaving Democrats largely
unchallenged as they assailed Bolton's knack for making enemies
and disparaging the very organization he would serve."
- Dana Milbank, Washington Post

"Uh, Dana? I'm pretty sure the organization Mr. Bolton is supposed
to be serving is *America*."
- Giftzwerg

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> So ... not only did I pick a niche game genre I also managed to pick
> the least popular scale within that niche.

And yet, TacOps is still selling while most of the prettier games released
in the same ten years are not.

Best regards, Major H.
tacops@mac.com
http://www.battlefront.com/

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <BE8DA7D4.7E82A%tacops@mac.com>, tacops@mac.com says...

> > So ... not only did I pick a niche game genre I also managed to pick
> > the least popular scale within that niche.
>
> And yet, TacOps is still selling while most of the prettier games released
> in the same ten years are not.

Well, this is weirdly unfair, given that virtually *no* games released
ten years ago are selling ... except TACOPS ... pretty or no.

<g>

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Most Republicans skipped the hearing, leaving Democrats largely
unchallenged as they assailed Bolton's knack for making enemies
and disparaging the very organization he would serve."
- Dana Milbank, Washington Post

"Uh, Dana? I'm pretty sure the organization Mr. Bolton is supposed
to be serving is *America*."
- Giftzwerg

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:02:45 -0400, Giftzwerg
<giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:


>Eye candy sells ... *once*.

IYO austere opinion. Say this in any other gaming group and you will
get laughed off the board.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On 21 Apr 2005 06:01:12 -0700, "eddysterckx@hotmail.com"
<eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"I don't do eye candy" - Major H. in the strategic ng to someone
>complaining about the "1993 graphics" of TacOps.

That's perfectly OK, Major H should hire someone to do it for
him )

>It triggered a chuckle, but then it got me wondering about the
>importance of graphics in wargames. The main school of thought in here
>is that graphics in wargames should be clear and functional, nothing
>more, so that the developer can use the time saved by not adding
>"superfluous" eye candy on the things that matter more, like AI or
>additional features.

Eye candy is *extremely* important IMO. If some think I am
shallow for saying that, I don't mind - call me shallow.

I came to regard devs and publishers who do not pay attention to
eye candy as if they're insulting me. Wargames are time consuming
hobby. When playing a wargame I am supposed to stare for HOURS on end,
and for many *months* (if game is worthy of my time) at something
ugly? At something developer did as an afterthought? No, please. If I
"pay" for the game - not with money, but with many hours of my
valuable free time - then I want to stare at the map and little
units/counters/battle animations that are at least pleasant to watch.
Nothing more, nothing less. Just pleasant.

Now of course big question is "what is good eye candy" and what
is "pleasant to watch"?

Some examples:

- HTTR is actually excellent looking game for me. Good example
that "eye candy" can mean just decently painted 2D maps and finely
drawn 2D unit counters. No bells and whistles, just decency and
functionality, but still obviously work of someone who knows to work
with graphics.
- Practically the same goes for FPG which looks very much like
HTTR visually (though game mechanics are very different).
- UV and WITP look very very nice with some modded user made
maps, though UI in those games could use some work. Original graphics
was decent, modded graphics available on the net is excellent.
- GG WAW - example of almost perfectly looking game, very decent
grand strategic map with sexy little unit icons. Everything a gamer
should ask for from a grand strategy game.

(Incidentally, I was showing WAW to one of my office buddies and
he dubbed it "skin for Excel": obviously for him this was a game of
numbers, so, basically could be played in Excel spreadsheet software
with some graphical enhancements to look "gamish".)

I'd say it's not just a coincidence good looking games usually
have very nice sounds too.

Some examples of BAD eye candy, ie. developer trying to do eye
candy but doing it badly, and actually distracting from gameplay:

- Panzer General 3D series - ugly, unnecesary pseudo-3d in what
is totally 2D game was confusing and distracting.

Some examples of NO eye candy at all, which I find downright
*insulting*:

- Any HPS game. Why would I pay full price for a game that was
produced with half the effort? Yes doing decent graphics involves some
effort...

BTW I tried demo of TacOps and it didn't look that bad to me.
Though it could use some help from a hired graphic designer. Major H,
graphic enthusiasts from East European countries can be hired
practically for free these days ;o)

>I used to be a fervent (and outspoken) proponent of this school of
>thought, but lately my views on this are getting more and more
>challenged. It seemed logical that time *not* spend on eye candy could
>be spend on something else but as I'm now somewhat getting a inside
>view on the wargame production process this turns out to be not so
>clear-cut.

))))

Nicely said. Beta experience with Arjuna and his team must be
enlightening.

>of people, each with their particular talents. The developer who takes
>care of the graphics is not the guy working on the AI.

Usually.

>Ok - so forget about the "time saved" factor, but how about costs ? Are
>eye-candy level graphics worth the additional cost ?

Absolutely!

O.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Oleg Mastruko" <oleg@bug.hr> wrote in message
news:3olg61ti9heqf1p2judcm2b6okksnhrts2@4ax.com...
> On 21 Apr 2005 06:01:12 -0700, "eddysterckx@hotmail.com"
> <eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"I don't do eye candy" - Major H. in the strategic ng to someone
> >complaining about the "1993 graphics" of TacOps.
>
> That's perfectly OK, Major H should hire someone to do it for
> him )
>
> >It triggered a chuckle, but then it got me wondering about the
> >importance of graphics in wargames. The main school of thought in here
> >is that graphics in wargames should be clear and functional, nothing
> >more, so that the developer can use the time saved by not adding
> >"superfluous" eye candy on the things that matter more, like AI or
> >additional features.
>
> Eye candy is *extremely* important IMO. If some think I am
> shallow for saying that, I don't mind - call me shallow.
>
> I came to regard devs and publishers who do not pay attention to
> eye candy as if they're insulting me. Wargames are time consuming
> hobby. When playing a wargame I am supposed to stare for HOURS on end,
> and for many *months* (if game is worthy of my time) at something
> ugly? At something developer did as an afterthought? No, please. If I
> "pay" for the game - not with money, but with many hours of my
> valuable free time - then I want to stare at the map and little
> units/counters/battle animations that are at least pleasant to watch.
> Nothing more, nothing less. Just pleasant.
>

Oleg has a good point here. The graphics have to be good enough that they
don't distract the player or turn him off from the game.

To expand on that, they also have to be functional. Wargames tend to be
information dense and good graphics can go a long ways towards helping the
player assimilate and digest all the relevant data. Good, well, ergonomics
probably isn't the right word but something in that direction, is critical.
It isn't strictly game design, graphics or UI, but a grey zone in-between
all three that often gets forgotten or tacked on clumsily after the fact
because no one took it into consideration when they started.

--
Multiversal Mercenaries. You name it, we kill it. Any time, any reality.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Giftzwerg wrote:

> Well, this is weirdly unfair, given that virtually *no* games
released
> ten years ago are selling ... except TACOPS ... pretty or no.

.... And here's me thinking that "BattleGround" game has been selling
for 15 years now

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Aldwyn Edain wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:02:45 -0400, Giftzwerg
> <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Eye candy sells ... *once*.
>
> IYO austere opinion. Say this in any other gaming group and you will
> get laughed off the board.

I fully believe it when an individual gamer says to me that for him eye
candy doesn't matter. That said, I've never heard a good reason why
wargamers - as a group and on average - wouldn't have the same basic
psychological treats as other humans. One of the basic treats being :
that what looks good, attracts attention. Be it a woman or a computer
game

I gave the example of miniatures battles at conventions - the prettiest
battle, not the most interesting or closely fought, gets the most
attention. Now I'm pretty sure that if you would ask the spectators if
for them eye candy mattered 80% would say "no", yet they stand there
and not at the next table ...

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

For me it's not a scale thing... Love the way the game plays... lots of
flexibility in unit composition, etc...
The problem is the graphics remind me of CGA/VGA level graphics (even the
colours are from a very limited palette...)

I love the maps in BIN/Korson Pocket but wouldn't pay extra for them -
perfectly happy with the detail in
something like HPS games, but the Tacop ones for me actually reduce my
enjoyment of the experience...

Having said that, I do like the game, and would buy a new version if one
were released so perhaps you
are right Major H... I gotta think that your sales would be better if the
graphics were updated though... game could
appeal to a broader audience if they gave it a chance and weren't turned off
by the appearance...

Making the graphics modable seems like the best balance to me...

Mike


"Major H" <tacops@mac.com> wrote in message
news:BE8DA5A4.7E828%tacops@mac.com...
> Over the years I have had a lot of conversations about the graphics in
> TacOps. Many/most times when I really explored with an individual exactly
> what it was about the graphics that he did not like, the real issue turned
> out to be that they wanted a different type of game at a different scale.
> I
> think of TacOps scale as being grand tactical. That scale does not give
> a
> tactical fan all the detail that he wants and an operational fan gets too
> much. So ... not only did I pick a niche game genre I also managed to
> pick
> the least popular scale within that niche.
>
> Best regards, Major H.
> tacops@mac.com
> http://www.battlefront.com/
>

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> Eric Young designed the V for Victory series, he was then hired by
> Keith Z of Atomic to work on the Close Combat series.

V For Victory was designed by Ed Rains, Keith Zabalaoui, and Larry Merkel -
in that order. Eric Young came in for Velikiye Luki and Market Garden. I
don't know why Young got higher billing in Market Garden than Ed Rains.

> I'm guessing that
> - as was customary at the time - the rights of the series remained with
> the publiser (360 ?).

Well, the game docs give copyright to Atomic Games rather than 360. For
more info than that on what happened you should talk to Ed Rains. Perhaps
enough time has passed that he might now talk about it publicly.

I worked with Ed and Larry for several years after they left Atomic Games -
on an unfinished game with a working title of "European Theater of
Operations: Normandy". Ed was the designer, Larry was the artist and AI
honcho, and I was the coder. We also worked together briefly on the
unfinished Panzers East. The group drifted away mostly because I kept
getting distracted by TacOps updates and partly because of the last days
unpleasantness with Arsenal.

ETO was pretty far along and would have been a great game. I don't know why
Ed and Larry did not finish it with another coder. I gave them the code and
my ownership interest.

Best regards, Major H.
tacops@mac.com
http://www.battlefront.com/

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On 22 Apr 2005 04:12:42 -0700, "eddysterckx@hotmail.com"
<eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Major H wrote:
>> I think many would sell if they were just kept OS compatible and the
>last
>> lot of reported bugs were fixed. Not enough probably to keep them in
>brick
>> stores but certainly enough to keep them available from an Internet
>store.
>> For example, I think that it was crazy for the V for Victory series
>to be
>> abandoned. New gamers appear every year.

well a key part of what you wrote was fixing the bugs. a big complaint
that people on usenet had about atomic's V4V and WaW series was that
they never fixed some serious bugs and abandoned support for their
games.

>Eric Young designed the V for Victory series, he was then hired by
>Keith Z of Atomic to work on the Close Combat series. I'm guessing that
>- as was customary at the time - the rights of the series remained with
>the publiser (360 ?). So even if he wanted to, maybe he couldn't
>upgrade the V series out of contractual reasons. Damn shame as they
>were top.

you forgot about the World at War series they did for Avalon Hill
before moving on to CC.

>
>Given that he then moved on to do Squad Battles, with the second
>installment coming out soon, maybe there's also the aspect that he
>can't possibly do everything and has to choose.

you mean Squad Assault and before that it was GI Combat.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Art Weingardner <artg@softhome.net> wrote in
news:6i6i615596t3ibe8lv3e2loddiskgfgse4@4ax.com:

> you forgot about the World at War series they did for Avalon Hill
> before moving on to CC.

My memory chips seem to be getting parity errors ...

>>Given that he then moved on to do Squad Battles, with the second
>>installment coming out soon, maybe there's also the aspect that he
>>can't possibly do everything and has to choose.
>
> you mean Squad Assault and before that it was GI Combat.

I'm definitely in need of a major overhaul - that or the rumour that the
human body needs sleep is true ...

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Giftzwerg <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1cd2ac6f75cccb1398a29b@news-east.giganews.com>...
> In article <3olg61ti9heqf1p2judcm2b6okksnhrts2@4ax.com>, oleg@bug.hr
> says...
>
> > Some examples:
> >
> > - HTTR is actually excellent looking game for me. Good example
> > that "eye candy" can mean just decently painted 2D maps and finely
> > drawn 2D unit counters. No bells and whistles, just decency and
> > functionality, but still obviously work of someone who knows to work
> > with graphics.
>
> Yeah, the trouble with discussing "eye candy" is that everyone has a
> different thing in mind when they use the phrase. Maybe it would be
> better to categorize wargame graphics as:
>
> (1) Substandard
>
> A graphical setup that's noticeably less attractive than the average
> game. HARPOON 2002 or TACOPS would be an example of this.
>
> (2) Adequate
>
> Graphics that are attractive and useful. I would put most modern games
> in this bucket; HTTR, BIN, anything by HPS.
>
> (3) Eye Candy
>
> I would define eye candy as graphics that are *unnecessary*. For a
> flight simulator, it's probably necessary to have full-blown 3D. For a
> wargame, it's probably silly. I mean, if you visit the command
> operations center on USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN, you won't find the admiral and
> his staff peering at anything remotely as pretty as GGWAW - they'll be
> marking a map with a pencil and looking at wire-frame graphics on VGA.
> So in the "eye candy" category I'd place things like COMBAT MISSION or
> the 3D view in TOAW; nice, I guess, but I would play CM in 2D mode if it
> were a practical option.

I suppose it all depends on what a person wants from a game. To me, I
enjoy CM because I can 'see' the battlefield, burnt-out tanks and all,
just as I can hear the soldiers shouting orders etc. It's more
interesting than 2-D. BUT, the more I play it I realise that the REAL
game in CM is the actual engine behind all that, and the tactics that
seperate victory and defeat. I can see why a person might prefer to
play it without the sugar on top, but I like it there anyway. FPS
games that are all graphics and very little decision making do nothing
for me, especially when you can only play them around three times
before you know when and where the enemy is going to pop out of.

>
> --
> Giftzwerg
> ***
> "Most Republicans skipped the hearing, leaving Democrats largely
> unchallenged as they assailed Bolton's knack for making enemies
> and disparaging the very organization he would serve."
> - Dana Milbank, Washington Post
>
> "Uh, Dana? I'm pretty sure the organization Mr. Bolton is supposed
> to be serving is *America*."
> - Giftzwerg

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In message <eu%9e.15816$m31.145766@typhoon.sonic.net>, James Gassaway
<dtravel@sonic.net> writes
>"Oleg Mastruko" <oleg@bug.hr> wrote in message
>news:3olg61ti9heqf1p2judcm2b6okksnhrts2@4ax.com...
>> On 21 Apr 2005 06:01:12 -0700, "eddysterckx@hotmail.com"
>> <eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"I don't do eye candy" - Major H. in the strategic ng to someone
>> >complaining about the "1993 graphics" of TacOps.
>>
>> That's perfectly OK, Major H should hire someone to do it for
>> him )
>>
>> >It triggered a chuckle, but then it got me wondering about the
>> >importance of graphics in wargames. The main school of thought in here
>> >is that graphics in wargames should be clear and functional, nothing
>> >more, so that the developer can use the time saved by not adding
>> >"superfluous" eye candy on the things that matter more, like AI or
>> >additional features.
>>
>> Eye candy is *extremely* important IMO. If some think I am
>> shallow for saying that, I don't mind - call me shallow.
>>
>> I came to regard devs and publishers who do not pay attention to
>> eye candy as if they're insulting me. Wargames are time consuming
>> hobby. When playing a wargame I am supposed to stare for HOURS on end,
>> and for many *months* (if game is worthy of my time) at something
>> ugly? At something developer did as an afterthought? No, please. If I
>> "pay" for the game - not with money, but with many hours of my
>> valuable free time - then I want to stare at the map and little
>> units/counters/battle animations that are at least pleasant to watch.
>> Nothing more, nothing less. Just pleasant.
>>
>
>Oleg has a good point here. The graphics have to be good enough that they
>don't distract the player or turn him off from the game.
>
>To expand on that, they also have to be functional. Wargames tend to be
>information dense and good graphics can go a long ways towards helping the
>player assimilate and digest all the relevant data. Good, well, ergonomics
>probably isn't the right word but something in that direction, is critical.
>It isn't strictly game design, graphics or UI, but a grey zone in-between
>all three that often gets forgotten or tacked on clumsily after the fact
>because no one took it into consideration when they started.
>
HCI is the term, Human Computer Interface - ensuring that the user gets
the information they need from the computer as easily and naturally as
possible. Very important in military applications as it happens - you do
NOT need to be trying to figure out whether that icon represents A/P or
H/E at a critical moment. The problem is that this gets confused with
"realistic" graphics - a realistic image may look good, but it is not
necessarily the best way of conveying information. A good example of
this is the development of Civ from the top down graphics of Civ 1 to
the isometric view of the later versions. The isometric units look much
nicer, but they make it harder to figure out which square an air unit is
in, and that bit harder to control your units.
--
John Secker

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 13:39:16 +0300, jari k
<email.is:Jari.Kujansuu@hut.fi.invalid> wrote:


>I agree. Sometimes colored boxes is best way to represent units, but it
>doesn't mean that you can't make them look nice. Sometimes it is very
>small details that separate ugly graphics from beatiful ones. Both could
>have same "data" but difference can be colors selected, smoothnes
>(resolution used) or perhaps little styling to make perhaps counters
>look like boardgame counters instead of flat boxes.

I think TACOPS just needs to use a wider range of colours to look more
attractive. Look at the 2D maps in TOAW as a good example of
functional and attractive.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

While taking a short break from the daily grind of enslavement and
world domination, Oleg Mastruko mentioned

(snippage here)

> Eye candy is *extremely* important IMO. If some think I am
>shallow for saying that, I don't mind - call me shallow.
>
> I came to regard devs and publishers who do not pay attention to
>eye candy as if they're insulting me. Wargames are time consuming
>hobby. When playing a wargame I am supposed to stare for HOURS on end,
>and for many *months* (if game is worthy of my time) at something
>ugly? At something developer did as an afterthought? No, please. If I
>"pay" for the game - not with money, but with many hours of my
>valuable free time - then I want to stare at the map and little
>units/counters/battle animations that are at least pleasant to watch.
>Nothing more, nothing less. Just pleasant.
>
> Now of course big question is "what is good eye candy" and what
>is "pleasant to watch"?

(more snippage here)

I come to this discussion fairly late, but to me the difference
between "good eye candy" and "pleasant to watch" is summarised as
follows.

In all my games where there is an option, I choose to use standard
military symbols, not iconic "infantry" or "Arty" or "armour" generic
shapes. The standard "counters" convey more information.

As examples, let's examine the maps and counters in (say ) SSI's
"Kampfgruppe" and compare to the Atomic/360/Avalon Hill "World at War"
series. I prefer the latter icons, even though they're smaller,
because they convey more info (switching colour borders to display
supply levels, divisional affiliation etc). These aren't just "eye
candy" although they are more "pleasant to watch". They're also more
informative. Need I mention that the maps are similarly more
informative in the latter series of games? Terrain information is just
more readily assimilable when displayed in such detail.

That's what *I* want in my "god'seye" computer conversions of
boardgames, even though I chose to switch on the "Limited Intel" and
"Fog of War" uncertainty factors.

In SSI's "Panzer General" I switch off the "movies" They convey no
information and just take time away from my gaming. There's "eye
candy" for you.

There ARE examples of "eye candy" which I choose to use.

In "Total War: Shogun: The Mongol Invasion" the ninja assassination
attempts can just be turned off, but because one never knows the
decision of the attempt until one sees the video play out, they're
suspenseful and heighten the enjoyment of the game. The bald info box
equivalent "Assassination Attempt Successful" and "Assassination
Attempt Failure" are just as informative, but not particularly
enjoyable. {They didn't survive the transition to "Total War:
Mediaeval" and I'd like to turn off the sound that comes with the
information box - but that's "EAR candy".}

In both those games I choose to play with most of the info menu icons
likewise turned off, because while it's always been possible to
distinguish between the types of (infantry) units (yari ashigaru, yari
samurai, naginata, arquebusiers), I've now learned to recognise the
significance of the numbers of banners of my units and can choose the
higher honour and morale ones for the inevitable frontal assaults.
(Hate them, but sometimes "up the guts" is the only way forward.)

I can do this because the level of detail presented onscreen, even
though not in military symbology, is sufficient to allow my decisions.
This isn't just eye candy, it's informative as well as more "pleasant
to watch".

In summary, where a higher level of graphics adds to the playability
of the game, I'm all for it. Where it just occupies time I could
productively use sorting and cataloguing my toenail clippings, I'm
against it.
..
..
"When in danger or in doubt,
Run in circles, scream and shout"
..
It's not just a management tool,
It's a philosophy for living!!
..