I've always thought 3D was overrated and more often than not ruined games. First of all often the 3D doesnt even look aesthetic visually, really choppy with bad textures, it just has this cool factor or novelty factor that makes everyone think its amazing (When Diablo II was being made this was the reason they decided against 3D). But more importantly, in many games like RPGs 3D has made the world size smaller, plot smaller, less usable items. I'm afraid that in Civilization 4 this will also mean the world size will be dramatically smaller. Its one more reason I'm concerned the game will be ruined. Civilization can get boring by the time you finish expanding territory and this is especially true if theres only a small amount of territory. I'm also concerned about some of the other announcements like RPG elements, but the world size is important.

I never really understand why ppl are so against 3D. Imho 3D looks much attractive and the main reason Diablo 2 was 2D was that the developers were not familiar with programming in 3D. There is no reason why the world scale of Civ4 will decrease due to the change to 3D.

If you look at a '3D' game like Warcraft III, think of it like those old pop-up books you read as a kid. That's how a 3D game can be made like a 2D game.

I never really understand why ppl are so against 3D
Easy. Because so many great 2D games were ruined when the 3D incarnation was done (Panzergeneral e.g.).

I'm afraid that in Civilization 4 this will also mean the world size will be dramatically smaller.

Pirates is in 3D and its world is plenty big. If they loot and pillage from that engine, I think that this particular fear of going to 3D will be unfounded (the issues of bad textures etc. may still be there).

I just do not understand why a turn based strategy game should be 3D unless it is situated in space (... and having experience with the Master of Orion III even in such a case I would be worried). What bothers me is, that AFAIK the cost of making good 3D graphics is much higher than in 2D and those monies are likely to be missing somevhere elese (AI for instance). IMO the 3D is too much effort for the civ-type game providing limited return. I am afraid that it was the reason why many good 2D games produced terrible 3D sequels.

I too don't really see what benefits 3D are supposed to bring, beyond possibly better gfx, which I don't care too much about (had I cared much about gfx, I'd never started playing Civ in the first place ...).

I just do not understand why a turn based strategy game should be 3D unless it is situated in space (... and having experience with the Master of Orion III even in such a case I would be worried). What bothers me is, that AFAIK the cost of making good 3D graphics is much higher than in 2D and those monies are likely to be missing somevhere elese (AI for instance). IMO the 3D is too much effort for the civ-type game providing limited return. I am afraid that it was the reason why many good 2D games produced terrible 3D sequels.
Actually, this is untrue.

3D is much easier to create these days if you're using people who have experience in the field (which certainly Firaxis is). A lot of the Civ 3 graphics were made in 3D and then had to be rendered down to 2D... so the same 3D elements are there, there's just an extra step to use them.

3D can actually cut load time, install size and all sorts of other things, because its easier to store graphics as math than it is to store them as raw data (think avi or mpeg movies or something). If you have an adequate 3D card, it should also run faster as well.

So from a development standpoint, they are quite a bit easier to work with.

As much as I could live without 3D and multiplayer, I agree with Firaxis' assessment you cannot sell a game today outside a die-hard community without those features.
Or sound; never turned that on. Or take the Aerial view in C3C - how many ppl keep complaining about the missing wonders?
From a marketing POV, it would be suicidial to stick to 2D.

And of course, 3D has to be thought as something alike Warcraft3. And you agree that this is just a 2D-Game with 3D Graphics. The view is still the same, it just looks better. Wouldn't it be cool to zoom into the civ game so that you don't see the army behind the mountain and watch your army walking around and slowly revealing parts of the enemy? Of course, this is unrealistic (civ is not played this way and it is turn-based), but still, wouldn't it be cool? :)

Therefore, no, world size would stay the same.

mfG mitsho

Civ has to become 3D sooner or later.

If I were to hazard a predicition. The 3D in Civ4 will vagualy resemble that in Pirates. Take a look at it (especially the turn based land combat screens) to get a feel for what it'll most likely be like.

a game played on 3D map will have much higher system demand than a game on 2D maps. This is not good, because the world size is already too big, and the game is already very demanding for most systems, if you play with more than the standard set of 8 AIs.
Going 3D will not help at all, as the in the case of Panzer General, I still play the first 2D simple PG that came out 10 years ago, and I played PG 3, in full 3D graphic for about 20 seconds.

Actually, this is untrue.
3D is much easier to create these days if you're using people who have experience in the field (which certainly Firaxis is). A lot of the Civ 3 graphics were made in 3D and then had to be rendered down to 2D... so the same 3D elements are there, there's just an extra step to use them.


I know that 3D modelling took part in the 2D civ graphics creation process, but rendering them realtime is quite a different thing. All 3D graphics in strategy games I have ever seen is either too large preventing clear view of larger portion of the strategy map (e.g. Warcraft III) or too low-detailed and less easily perceptable (eg. Total War series).
If the Civ IV will become the first exception I will experience I will be very happy about it, but there were so many negative cases that prevent me from being positive until I see some preview.

horragoth, like I said a few items up, try the land based combat from the new Pirates. This has a very Civ feel to it.

horragoth, like I said a few items up, try the land based combat from the new Pirates. This has a very Civ feel to it.
I did not bought Pirates, so my only info are screenshots. Actually they are one of the sources of my worries which made me to write the previous post.

Civ is already 3D - up+down, side-to-side, and TIME ;)

Joking aside, I would not want to see Civ go spacial 3D because of things like loading times. And anyway, we are playing on the surface of the world from an aerial viewpoint - 3D means nothing from such a persective. Sure, we know the world is 3D (otherwise we wouldn't be able have an aerial viewpoint), but that means nothing to us up here. If we are on a bombing mission we need two co-ordinates: latitude and longtitude (spelling?). Same in Civ. We want to move things around, not towards/away from the ground.

I think there is no point arguing about it. Firaxis made this decision many months ago. It is most likely too late to sway them on it.

Easy. Because so many great 2D games were ruined when the 3D incarnation was done (Panzergeneral e.g.).

I've also seen games really get a new life after going to 3D which made you never want to go back to the old version. :)

So let's just wait and see. I have some confidence in Sid Meier.

I'm neither for nor against 2D or 3D (I try to maintain a neutral viewpoint), but given the setup of the Civilisation series, I cannot see how Civ IV could be improved or even really changed with the Introduction of 3D, unless it has to do with the city view and throne room.

a game played on 3D map will have much higher system demand than a game on 2D maps. This is not good, because the world size is already too big, and the game is already very demanding for most systems, if you play with more than the standard set of 8 AIs.
Going 3D will not help at all, as the in the case of Panzer General, I still play the first 2D simple PG that came out 10 years ago, and I played PG 3, in full 3D graphic for about 20 seconds.

First off gameplay and graphics arnt directly related. PG 3 was bad because of gameplay, not because of graphics (from my understanding anyways). Also 3d rendering is done by your graphics processor, NOT your main cpu. They will be independent of each other. Also the long time between turns is because of the number of units and cities the ai controls in later games. World sizes causes this. Now if the programers can get the Ais to preplan moves while the player conducts their turn then turns would go by much faster. Also the world is too big only if you play on that size. I play on smaller maps and I never suffer from long turns.

What will cause graphical slowdown is advanced effects and high polygons. Unlike total war ther wont be hundereds - thousands of units on screen, so more polygons can be afforded for more detailed sprites. Also some people are confusing real time 3d rendering with 3d movement. 3D rendering renders graphics in real time as opposed to pre-rendered 2d sprites that civ 1-3 uses.

Read trips post, he explains the 3d thing quite well.

personnally I would prefer to stick with a 2d system but have layers like call to power 1 space environment. thus you could create layers like low orbit high orbit underground and sea bed. units could then have modable flags for movement in each enironment. layers could be transluscent but still visible by a switch in the program. units could move between layers either by portals or by themselves if they had the right flags. as to eye candy and fancy interface scrolling I say screw it it adds nothing to gameplay.

Actually, for games like Total War where there are lots of units onscreen, a noticeable speedup happened on many 3d-accelerated computers, because it better used the resources of the graphics card.

Now I hardly expect civIV to be a DirectX 9.1 power-hungry beast. Due to the lack of many complexities, I predict that if your computer can run The Sims comfortably, it should be able to run civIV.

The worry about the 3D engine is unfounded. The fact that the engine existed even before they started developing civIV, douses the claims that it will blow production time out, causing a skimp on gameplay. The time it takes for the computer to draw the screen will be quicker. A load will be taken off the CPU, making it run faster. The detail and resolution will be scaleable, unlike civ3. But, mostly of all, due to the turn-based nature of civIV, the 3D viewpoint will NOT get in the way of gameplay. In fact, the versatility of the camera viewpoint will enhance slow-paced games like civIV, unlike how it becomes a gameplay distraction, like in some RTS and RPG games.

I think 2D is fine. But the terrain and rivers and improvements could be a little more popped up I guess. Maybe when you zoom into a city it becomes 3D.

Again, you people are confusing 3d rendering with a 3d environment. There will be no upper levels, or lower levels, just that the units will be rendered in real time from a file full of mathmatics instead of a pre-rendered gfx file.

What's so bad about 3D? Looking at the screenshots of what is Civ4 so far, the requirements shouldn't be that much more to have it 3D. If you aren't running a Commodore 64 your computer should be able to handle it.

While there is concern that the graphics will be choppy, that's not a 3D graphic problem itself, just a programmar/artist flaw. Plenty of games are beautifully rendered in 3D, and Civ4 should be no exception.

3d will mean about the same world size, as long as they dont go aom 3d, it could even get slightly larger as moderate 3d loads faster than 2d on 3d graphics cards, since in 3d images get drawn very fast, while in 2d they are already made and have to be loaded

Moderate 3D looks ugly. I mean 3D graphics look a lot worse than 2D if you don't turn on high detail and high polygon.

I'd say stick with 2D. It ain't broke, so.....

Besides the way the game is we already have 'pseudo-3D' graphics. Why bother to change, to satisfy those who won't get anything without all 3 dimensions?

Moderate 3D looks ugly. I mean 3D graphics look a lot worse than 2D if you don't turn on high detail and high polygon.

even with a lot of high polygon game graphics, if people saw a screenshot and didnt know the graphics were in game 3D, but just something drawn, they would think they looked bad. as it is, its easier to make a game visually aesthetic in 2D with rendered graphics. in some games real 3D in game is good for the engine but i think people are wondering why its good for civilization other than as a gimmick

Why bother to change, to satisfy those who won't get anything without all 3 dimensions?

Well, when the someone is your publisher and their marketing department...

Pirates! land-based combat screenshot:

another one from Pirates!

It would be cool if the terrain in Civ4 looked like that (it looks awsome there).

anybody ever played empire earth. That has where you can change between 2d and 3d. different cameras of the game. That would be awsome in civ 4

Well, when the someone is your publisher and their marketing department...

Oooh wow, must bow down to the great god of marketing, for it is all-wise.

Seriously though, is anyone here going to jump ship if the new graphics aren't 3D?

It's not for the people here that they turned to 3D for. That's the point. :p

the problem is 2D is somewhat broken. Its slow, difficult to work with, and for quality levels 2d gfx take up significantly more room than a 3d file.

Easy. Because so many great 2D games were ruined when the 3D incarnation was done (Panzergeneral e.g.).

? Panzer General 3D? I found that to be way better. I made less mistakes moving my units and it felt more realistic. I bet Civ4 will be just fine 3D, and it will have even nicer looking units because of it, not that the units didn't look cool in Civ3.

It's not for the people here that they turned to 3D for. That's the point. :p

To be frank, who wants to be associated with people who noly think of buying games if they are 3D? And if you're that way inclined, then I don't think you'll like Civ much anyway.

I've also seen games really get a new life after going to 3D which made you never want to go back to the old version. :)

So let's just wait and see. I have some confidence in Sid Meier.

Damn straight. Sid's Civilization games are always full of bugs, but they are never short on being addictive/enjoyable. 3D won't change that.

Civ 2 practically had a patch a week. It went form version 1.0 to 2.48 (iirc) from releace to the time i bought it ;)

CIV2 still rules supreme in the hearts of veteran civvers.

But if CIV4 has 3D units, it could impact the mod community, in terms of difficulty of adding units, etc.

That is assuming the developers still give a damn about the mod community.
CIV3 showed that they did not care about making a lasting scenario mod scene.

I am holding out for CIV4, though!
As long as they give plenty of spare 3D units, ease of scenario-building,
decent event support and add-on mod packs - I will be in CIV valhalla!

If not, I will stick with CIV2 forever!

:D

Something similar I posted some time ago.
Here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=98364).

I honestly do not see why a TBS should be 3D. What gain do you get by being able to move around and see a city from different angles?

3D does not imply being able to see cities from different angles. It is how the graphics are fundamentally rendered. The question is, should the GPU in most modern systems be used to offload work from the CPU freeing it up for more important things than the graphics?

The other thing you gain is much less time spent for Firaxis' modellers (and later on moddders) to animate the units.

Okay, they're rendering the world in 3D. Could be neat, visually, but I wonder if the game engine is thinking in 3D or if it's just the interface. If it's the interface... then you have simple eyecandy. If the engine thinks in 3D, then you're playing in a volumetric space - which could be incredibly cool.

Somebody mentioned the levels in CTP with space and ocean environments. That could be done in a volumetric map... and then some. It would be cooler than ice cubes if the world had a moon... that we could reach and colonize. The option to zoom all the way out to see planet curvature? How about the option to zoom into your lunar base? How about more than one moon? How about (for machines with a gig of ram) having the central planet a gas giant and you evolve on a moon? And your competition evolves on another moon?

Of course, in Civ5 you can zoom out to see the whole solar system... then zoom in to see your colony progress on Alpha Centauri.

Thoughts?

The pirate graphics do look very nice. But it look too much like RTS and doesn't have that TBS feel. I would like future civ to stay with 'flat map' (2d maps).

LIke it has been said, the map will still be 2d. How the sprites are rendered however will use real time rendering (known as 3d) instead of prerendered (ala civ 3). It has nothing to do with volumetric space or moving cameras, although such things can be dome more easy using a 3d rendering system.

Being 3d doesn't automatically mean it's going to be like a FPS. It picks up that rep becaus 3d is largely being driven by that type of game. The arguement about the looks would have been applicable a few years ago. For instance, Baldur's Gate's background artistry was breathtaking, while Neverwinter Night's 3d backgrounds were horrible, and totally destroyed the atmosphere of the game, IMO.

Having said that, I bought Half-Life 2, even though I become bored with FPS after about 20 minutes. HL2's background are nothing short of stunning. Combined with the excellent sound, I was totally immersed. So, if you combine the current quality of the technology, with some good attention to quality skins for the objects, the graphics for a 3d civ would be VASTLY superior to the repetitive conventional 2d tiles. The system requirements will be lower than the typical FPS, since the objects will be rendered to a 2d look, and there won't be 3 dozen objects moving constantly, in addition to yourself moving through the environment. The consternation about 3d is just stubborn hysteria.

I hope MM and the game engine will be improved enough you can play on even bigger maps than allowed in civ3. I loved playing on El Mency's 362X362 map. Of course, 30+ minute turn waits become somewhat annoying!

Has anyone else looked at Rome Total War's graphics? I think something that looked like that for Civ4 would be great.

Good point, Gunner. That is a very relavent example of a TBS that 3D graphics did not ruin. Their 3D map is nice. Another example is the map of Battle for Middle Earth. That map is flat out gorgeous.