Civ 4 Screenshots found!

Dont know if someone has already found these, or whether they are the original infamous PCGamer pics, but i did a search for civ 4 screenshots and found this french site with two of them.
At first glance i was a bit sceptical - they looked so different that i thought it must be a different game depicted and realised that it was more likely that my french was simply rubbish ;)
Anyway i think they are the real deal...

http://www.clubic.com/t/jeux/shot/1174.html

They're the same screenies that we've already seen.

They're the same screenies that we've already seen.

Yeah presumed it might be after reading the responses to the original pics.
Anyway, found them again for those, like m, who haven't seen them yet :goodjob: :)

They're the same screenies that we've already seen.

They're the same that YOU'VE seen, but there are people out there like me who hadn't seen them and couldn't access them from CFC, because they've been removed you see.

And yes, they look horribly ugly. But that almost feels reassuring somehow, since it means it's certain to be improved on. If they'd looked decent but still not great, that may have been closer to the final result. This just HAS to be improved.

yeah I hadnt seen them either thanks for posting the link

the game looks really weird tho

oh and I'm not gonna buy the magazine either :rolleyes:

I am sensing a second wave of, "the graphics SUCK!!!"

Gosh, people, they will get better! :crazyeye:

If you capture Cologne, your troops will smell really nice(not really)

Someone has a sense of humor. :lol:
'
The graphics are clearly not even cloe to done. The game isn't gonna be released for another year, so they deffinatly will get better. Nothing is set in stone yet. Well almost nothing nothing.:p

there are 2 here not 4

a year is 365 days, i though it was coming out early this new year. That would not be a year

My best guess would be late november 2005. That's nearly a year from now.

The phase we are in right now is most exciting; we still don't know anything about the game except for a few facts which we don't know the details of.
The best is yet to come.

I expect that www.civ4.com website to actually be updated with CIV stuff early January.

It's funny, though, with the screenshots. They don't really give too many clues about news gameplay-wise, since it all looks to have been drawn up pretty roughly. So why even show these screenies when the graphics are at such an early stage? I mean if the intention was to water a few mouths, they didn't exactly pull it off...

They want to get all the civvers talking about it.

Mission accomplished.

So why even show these screenies when the graphics are at such an early stage?

Because the magaizine said that they'd give a page or two article. Free publicity is hard to justify turning down. They had to give the screen shots that they had at the time. Would you rather they mocked up some slick looking graphics for the article knowing that the game would look worse?

They want to get all the civvers talking about it.

Mission accomplished.

All the 'civvers' *were* already talking about it. Now they just had bad things to say.

Because the magaizine said that they'd give a page or two article.

Impossible to fill with text? I mean, seriously, don't you think ugly screenies do more harm than good? Just look at all the people who can't comprehend the fact that the finished product will look much better. They're potential buyers too, y'know.

The phase we are in right now is most exciting; we still don't know anything about the game except for a few facts which we don't know the details of.
The best is yet to come.

I expect that www.civ4.com website to actually be updated with CIV stuff early January.

Intresting that the site is registered in china.....

Intresting that the site is registered in china.....

That must mean Sid Mier is.....A COMMUNIST!!
:crazyeye:

I can't see the screenshots.

I can't see the screenshots.

Good for you. ;)

I can't see the screenshots.
PC Gamers wanted them taken off, however later this month some public pics and info should be released...

Whatta hell is that???

the screenshots look ok. i prefer the civ3 graphics. the city display thingy is better in civ3

This is exactly why developers don't like to let anyone see their work until it's done. Civ IV is not going to have that look-and-feel one year from now.

Can someone post here the screenshots?
I know that PC-Gamer copy of january has already published, so I think it's ok to publish the screenshots in public...

If you dig not too deep in this thread (hint: last page) you'll find a link to them.

I don't see how a year of work will change this graphics to the better...to CIV4 I was hoping for more realistic maps, a kind of satelite view instead of cartoon-type graphics...although they can improve the quality and smoothness of this graphics, the makers of CIV4 seem to be more interested in a Warcraft-type environment...this would definetely be a step backwards...

Many games on the shelves now are given a year for their entire development.

I don't see how a year of work will change this graphics to the better...to CIV4 I was hoping for more realistic maps, a kind of satelite view instead of cartoon-type graphics...although they can improve the quality and smoothness of this graphics, the makers of CIV4 seem to be more interested in a Warcraft-type environment...this would definetely be a step backwards...

Graphics are over-rated. ;) A game can have the best graphics and eye candy ever, but it's not going to mean a thing if the gameplay is lousy.

The best possible graphics you can get is looking out your window. Now, sit there for 2 hours, staring at the wonderful, realistic "graphics" and tell me if you're having fun. You won't have fun unless you actually do something.

I don't see how a year of work will change this graphics to the better...to CIV4 I was hoping for more realistic maps, a kind of satelite view instead of cartoon-type graphics...although they can improve the quality and smoothness of this graphics, the makers of CIV4 seem to be more interested in a Warcraft-type environment...this would definetely be a step backwards...

When you have worked in the games industry, you will realise that a
massive amount can change in just three months, never mind a year...

;)

I don't see how a year of work will change this graphics to the better...to CIV4 I was hoping for more realistic maps, a kind of satelite view instead of cartoon-type graphics...although they can improve the quality and smoothness of this graphics, the makers of CIV4 seem to be more interested in a Warcraft-type environment...this would definetely be a step backwards...

A year of work is a lot of manpower. Considering that most in the industry work longish hours and Firaxis throws around 30 programmer/artisit/engineer/designers on a project, this is likely in the ballpark of 60,000-120,000 (let's call it 90,000 to split the difference, although I suspect it'll be closer to the top) hours of work left to put into it. Think about what you could do in that amount of time.

As far as the style, that is abviously a personal choice. While I'm not that fond of the Warcraft style graphics for Civ, I'd absolutely hate a style that looks like satellite imagery.

Don't like it very much....

they showed us the frame of what they have accomplished already. it was famous once to never show a piece of art before it was finished. the reasons were to avoid critics and skeptics. it was nice that they broke this rule for us, so all we could do is put them down, and slap it in their face...so unforgiving we are, yet so unforgiving can the enemy be...

thanks for putting those pictures out for us.
as a civ addict, i am grateful that my supply has been temporarily replenished
by the hopes and futures that those pictures posses .


i am planning to build a new computer for the debut of civ4. i did this when civ 3 came out.
so dont be shy with the requirements.

Yeah, I hate having to lie to everybody saying why I need such a "powerful" computer back at home saying it's " 'cause of work I take home" when the truth is that I bought it just to play Civ, oh well, I'm a civ-addict.

I don't really mind if it looks like warcraft...

So long as it doesn't PLAY like warcraft.

(e.g.: The only reason you make buildings is to support your army. Control more territory to support a bigger army. Eradicate the other guy and win.)

so is there anywhere i can still get the pictures.. ive scrolled right through the thread and couldnt find a link thats still "up"

Sure, http://mrex.org/ should have them. :)

They are in the screenshots thread in the Civ4 forum.

aha thankyou!

MY GOD! am i dissapointed, sure its only early days... but it looks like everythings gone very "cute" much like the new Link games on the gamecube! EUGH, i dont want cuty-lil-spear men, i want fearsome warriors!

i did the same thing to man, dont feel bad...played civ 2 first on playstation, it was really hard waiting for 5 minutes till it load up the next turn nearing the end of a 10 hour game... so i promised myself when civ 3 came out, i would cash in some rrsp's and buy a machine that could house 100's of cities without the aggrevating load time.

now that civ 4 is coming out, i have choosen to sell my machine, in hopes i could get more for it now then later.
128bit geforce 4
512 ram
1.6 amd
40 gig all for 300$, its sad thinking what i originally paid for it, but o well...it didnt include the games...

anyways civ 4 gets a new computer for me, so i hope they dont get shy on the graphics.

The graphics aren't as much "cute" as they are "cartoony". Cute is different.

Ugh, that looks weird... What's the point in multiple figure units anyway? Fill up a lot of space + look ugly + no point really, as a "unit" is still only an indication of what type of guys you have - there is still going to be more than four warriors in a "unit", so I don't see what's the point in having four figures rather than one..

Hope it improves..

I'm sure multifigure units would look nice and all when animated but chances are I'm just going to shut off animations shortly after getting into the game in order to speed up the process of finishing a game so that I can start a new one.

Im just hoping the music is good, long and varied. I can't stand the music from Civ2 or Civ3 it drives me up the wall if I play longer then an hour.

I didn't see yet PC-Gamer. Portugal is an annormal country...

No commets.

so, why do we need 3D then?

ah well, I must admit, I really don't care ... as long as the game has lots of depth, cool features, awesome gameplay etc etc I won't care if they make it look like someone had too much booze and went to the corner ...


I agree with that statement. That is what Civ is about... Diplomacy, Economy, Production and of course Warfare.


Trade Routes. Say the Americans are trading Oil to Russia. I think it would be nice if you, we'll say you are Japan, would be able to attack the trade convoy, if it be by land, sea or air, and either destroy it or steal it.

Different Currency for every civ? A new "Economic" victory type?

It would be more realistic then requiring you to blockade every last harbor...or airport for that matter...

North-south wrap? That's wierd... It doesn't make any sense realistically, and I don't think that it will improve the game any.

A realistic northpole wrap and southpole wrap...it was done in Civ2: Call to Power. Like if you go across the Northpole 1/4 the way along the top you appear 3/4 of the way on the top...

actually, looking at it on the german site, it (the game) doesnt look that bad .... also, to the guy that said zoom would be useful. it wouldnt. period

Zooming out would be quite useful...going across an ocean to another continent? Seeing the general relation of each country to other countries.


Let's curb this useless anti-USA and anti-Euro crud.
Have you all forgot? CIV transcends nationality!
We are all into CIV, and we feel strongly about what we want -
But panzer duels at dawn will not solve any intellectual debates...


AGREED!!!

The thing is, IMHO, sea (and to some extent, land) bombardment and craters are badly implemented elements, gameplay-wise, even before finding out if it's fun or realistic.

Bombardment and destroying imprvovements mayb be poorly implemented, but I feel that they are necessary elements.


"Civ IV will include some entirely new features, such as...Great People, which will affect your entire empire." (I've not heard of these "great people" before.)

I kind of like this "Great People" notion...not sure exactly what it means, but have some ideas...

Also, concerning the use of enemy roads, this is something I like. However, railroads would have to be changed... I'm thing roads=2 movement, railroads=4, and highways=6; or even 3, 6, 9... If you don't want an enemy using your roads you have to block them!!!

Just my thoughts and opinions after looking at the thread...

This reminds me of people's reason for not liking Civ2:Test of Time: lousy graphics. Even now, many dislike ToT for that reason, even though its just the artwork that they don't like and not the engine that uses sprite files for the unit animations.

How the graphics look should be completely irrelevant to you (i.e. you civers); look is to attract non-civers (the equivilant of making the storefront look nice in order to attract cusomers). What you should be worried about is what effect this 3-D bull$hit will have on modding (i.e. Civ3's 2-D units are a sinch to create in comparison to 3-D models and even then, the Civ3 modding has had to become specialized in that area). And for those who say modding is not important, I see you enjoy downloading a wide variety of mods/scens and playing them at no cost...

3-D graphics will also have a devastating effect on medium-level systems. A lot of your system's resources will go to showing you a group of 3-D Warriors with full skeletal wrap that you can zoom in on 'til you can see the whites of their eyes. Meanwhile the features that do matter will be necessarily limited in order to prevent turn rate from lagging too much.

3-D graphics reasoning simply put:

Reasons (for marketing):

- Attract the RTS gamers to the TBS genre...and maybe a few suckers that have no idea about strategy gaming but think they should finally try it and hey, why not buy the box with the coolest pictures on the back because its the only criteria for game quality they're aware of.

- Play along with the market trend of forcing players to continuously upgrade in order to play something that is only slightly better than the previous installment in terms of graphics (which is practically irrelevant when speaking of startegy gaming--especially turn-based stategy gaming).


Reasons (for you):

- You get to admire the amazing graphics...while waiting 10 minutes for your next turn.

- You get to pay extra money to see cool graphics that have no (practical) effect on gameplay.



Not that you can tell any of this from the screen shots, but here's what concerns me: No mention of logistics. This is a big one and I seriously think they're going to leave this out in their quest for 'simplicity.' Something like that is usually mentioned very early on. This one element has always made Civ second-rate IMO simply because it makes unlimitd warfare anywhere on the map (i.e. at any distance) for an infinite duration. Not to bring up realism but it is a strategy game after all and strategy implies logistics.


Man, that water looks so 3-D fluid-like I'm sure those Warriors can see their reflection in it.

for what i saw, isn't so great the graphics!!!

:(

I don't care about grapics just because i think after a month of the Civ IV release there will be something like a "Snoopy's terrain graphics", what i like to have in civ 4 is 3D

I don't care about grapics just because i think after a month of the Civ IV release there will be something like a "Snoopy's terrain graphics", what i like to have in civ 4 is 3D
I am more concerned with the units in 3d - Firaxis ought to include either a paperdoll editor, allowing changing clothes, equipment, armament as well as colours, and/or a way of utilizing other, non 3d units such as fake 3d flicster ones)

You actually want 3D? Aside from slowing your game down and looking pretty (potentially), what good does it do? (Keep in mind graphics have ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT ON GAMEPLAY...NONE...NADA.)

[BTW, those of you who keep going on about the graphics not looking nice: that has nothing to do with the graphics engine.]

I never said I wanted any 3d (in fact I don't and must say you are fully right in every respect!!! Yoshi)- but then again Firaxis seems to have taken a decission already- so IF we are getting 3d, I want to timely advert the makers not to produce something that lacks the editors needed... as the greatest factor Firaxis has shown to be lacking is hardly graphical esprit: its vision!

W.i.n.t.e.r, that post was directed at deo's and previous comments. Sorry for the confusion.

As for your comments: Definitely. But I remember talking about a graphics editor for Civ3 a while ago and supposedly it has more to do with development time and sales rather than vision.

Considering Civ3 didn't offer any static animation options (a la ToT), I doubt this is of much concern over there. But since you're asking for that, might as well put the pressure on (assuming anyone's listening) for resolution options.

Civ3's graphics engine is already pushing it IMO but it's still nothing compared to 3D animations; I shudder at the thought of this. Hopefully it's just units that are 3D, can you imagine the load on system resources for a later game on 250x250 map...in 3D!? (I can hear my PC screaming hysterically already.)

Where vision is concerned, IMO Firaxis should have forseen a lot of the 'bugs'--many of which have never been addressed--in Civ3 and acted accordingly, which they didn't. I fear a whole new set of problems in this release.

The thing that gets me is this: most if not all Firaxians are gamers right? Strategy gamers to be precise. That means they're fully aware of what I said above. Why the 3D then? The only thing that comes to mind are the reasons I gave earlier. IMO this is not a lack of vision but rather a sever case of selling out to an increasingly primitive market. The worst part is that the civ franchise probably has THE most solid, loyal, even fanatical--consider how often do you hear 'I will buy it no matter what it's like' around here-- consumer base in the history of gaming. This attempt to dig into other parts of the market is just lame IMO.

The other thing is, WE, THE LOYAL CIVERS, ARE PAYING FOR THIS 3D CRAP!!!

yoshi where are they

anyone out there

Ok ok! Than don't include 3D. I just said i like to see 3D in civ 4 but if it slows down the game a bit, why not including it? For example I know only one friend that realy likes Civ 3 and the others say it's **** just because of the graphics. If Civ IV will have 3D than it will be truly beautiful and we will have more members here! :D

More members? I doubt so- perhaps more people requesting units for fewer people to make them...

Where are the screenies of Civ4?

I can't find them on the CivFanatics homepage... :confused:

They have been taken off due to copyright laws.

Somebody had them on his homesite IIRC, it should be in this thread somewhere :)

More members? I doubt so- perhaps more people requesting units for fewer people to make them...

And i thought the units were made first 3D and than converted to fcl. :crazyeye:

Links to the screenshots
http://mrex.org/images/Boxart.jpg
http://mrex.org/images/Cologne.jpg
http://mrex.org/images/Cologne2.jpg
http://mrex.org/images/Countryside.jpg

I agree with the previous comments regarding the '3D-cartoony' look of the game. This is somewhat disturbing.

I hope that it is still turn-based because real-time play would, in my opinion, totally destroy the game. The shop assistant at my local computer store hinted that this may be the case ... I'm hoping that he is misinformed :eek:

Links to the screenshots
http://mrex.org/images/Boxart.jpg
http://mrex.org/images/Cologne.jpg
http://mrex.org/images/Cologne2.jpg
http://mrex.org/images/Countryside.jpg

I agree with the previous comments regarding the '3D-cartoony' look of the game. This is somewhat disturbing.

I hope that it is still turn-based because real-time play would, in my opinion, totally destroy the game. The shop assistant at my local computer store hinted that this may be the case ... I'm hoping that he is misinformed :eek:

Civ and real time? I must only laugh :lol:

yoshi where are they
You mean where are the loyal civers? [] if I know. ;)

If Civ IV will have 3D than it will be truly beautiful and we will have more members here!
Okay, how many f-ing times do I have to say this? When people say they don't like the graphics, they mean they don't like the artwork NOT, I repeat, NOT the GRAPHICS ENGINE: what your friends don't like is the funny-looking default IMAGES--units that look like CGI cartoons, terrain that looks like it's based on the landscape in the Dragonball Z series, Advisors and Leaders that look...uh...idiotic...retarded...moronic...constip ated, that ship with the game. Tell you friends to try a good C3C WW2 mod with realistic-looking graphics and see if they still think it's ****.

The 3D engine on the other hand, will slow down the game A LOT not a bit (unless you have a high-end system and I’d guess that a majority of civers do not—hence the reason why many did not make the transition from Civ2 to Civ3). Think about it this way: 200+ 3D units running around (possibly simultaneously) on a large map with plenty of cities building stuff in a game with more (mechanics) features then Civ2 and Civ3 combined (hopefully)—hence putting a greater strain on system resources. I want more features because they add more interesting and fun stuff to the game. Your system resources should go to running that, not unnecessary 3D $hit.

[To add to my comment on features: the more moddable features there are, the easier it is for players to make up for anything lacking in the vanilla version (modding is not just about scenarios).]

3D is good if you need it, like in FPS where you need to be able to gauge distances and such. Then it makes sense since the point is to make the environment as visually immersive as possible. In a strategy game—especially TBS—where the immersive effect is mostly intellectual (i.e. you deal with information in numerical (abstract) form—x number of food/shields/commerce, x number of units, x number of hitpoints, x number of turns, etc.—as opposed to graphics-based information as in FPS or even RPG formats), graphics just add to the ‘feel’ of the game (i.e. makes the numerical information easier to look at for hours). Other than that, it serves no purpose…to the player that is. To those selling the game, graphics are initially more important than gameplay (as I said, it’s what consumers see first—how many gamers actually read reviews?). Additionally, there is market pressure to keep the hardware industry going, not just the software industry. Usually, another reason is competition: your average gamer given the choice between two strategy games that are relatively similar, will go for the one with the coolest-looking graphics—again, they make the mistake of confusing artwork for the engine itself. So usually, simple competition is a good reason, from the marketing perspective, to go the distance where graphics are concerned because it will pay off in the end. The thing with the Civ franchise is…THERE IS NO COMPETITION! The Civilization franchise is like the Microsoft of the TBS genre: it’s as close to a monopoly as you can get in the gaming world, and it is deservedly so considering its fan following (who do not need much convincing to get the next installment).

Supposedly the Civ franchise is not doing as well as one would think, but sales for Civ3 were massive (putting aside the XPs). So say this is due to hype at finally getting a new Civ. Again, no competition to fill the void; CTP doesn’t really count as competition ;) and Civ2:ToT had lousy sales because who wants to buy the same game only with…wait for it…BETTER GRAPHICS (i.e. unit and resources animations powered by a outdated but effective graphics engine that uses sprite files)?!

And now my point: if Civ3’s success was due to hype over a game that was essentially not a great leap from Civ2—in fact most of the innovations (i.e. new air unit mechanics, bombardment, new resource/diplomacy-based trade system, new system of espionage, culture/borders, new unit upkeep system…great Editor—that last one doesn’t matter to most civers unfortunately) were mostly things that should have been in Civ2—but looked nicer, then isn’t there the danger that Firaxis go by the logic that what worked then will work now? If so, they will just give us yet another Civ that doesn’t really innovate and, contrary to what they have said, will be littered with ‘hard-coded’ features. Then, what it lacks will just be glossed over with 3D graphics (that look better than those ridiculous screenshots I assume) and other useless eye candy. Question is, are you willing to pay for mostly pretty pictures? (Maybe you are and then one could argue that had ToT had better graphics (i.e. nicer looking units), the game would have had better sales.)

(As my personal note, I think it’s pretty lame that they have to resort to eye candy even when, as I said, the franchise has something like a monopoly in this area so they don’t have to follow market trends as strictly as most of the other genres.)

...perhaps more people requesting units for fewer people to make them...
As if you don't get enough requests already... :D

When Civ4 modding becomes popular, he that has the software will be king, heh, heh.

I'm not opposed to 3D graphics, but Yoshi does point to a larger point... that a prettier version of Civ 3 isn't gonna cut it.

And i thought the units were made first 3D and than converted to fcl. :crazyeye:
Only a handfull of people made 3d units- I have been around for several years and seen more ugly c&p units in several forums to know that when a new standard is introduced this means people will use the trial and error principle- 3d began with Kinboat, Boulboulgadol and Smoking Mirror only by the end of 2002, a few years after civ3 hit the shelfs. With new 3d-ware most 3d creators will need to adapt to totally new processes and it is likely to take years before unit making is mastered well enough and in sufficient numbers and quality.

btw. most people think 3d equals 3d- well, surprise: There are plenty of rival programs on the market, most subject to differing compatibility standards (i.e. if the 3d engine isn't compatible with the programs our present unit makers are using, that renders theses peoples' talents obsolete). Its like trying to build a Toyota engine into a Volkswagen- if its not meant to fit from start-on it will never do so.

All the units made by Firaxis and Breakaway for Civ3 were done in 3D and then converted to flc. The artists hated that part of the process as it is very tedious cleaning the animations up that worked fine in Max and looking like crap when turned into a flc. It often took longer than making the 3D model and animating it in the first place.

This change to 3D is in part to cut the costs for the developer. I'll let you in on a dirty little secret. These days, 3D is cheaper to do than 2D if you have a lot of animations.

Contrary to what W.i.n.t.e.r. says, there are a few standards in 3D that all games companies use behind the scenes. Both we and Firaxis use 3DS Max for all of our modelling and then convert it to whatever format the engine prefers. If I were interested in building 3D models for units, buildings, and terrain features, I'd learn Max now. (If you are a Maya fan, that can easily be converted to the formats that Firaxis uses also, it's just that they use Max.)

Interesting, I can't wait to see how in depth this game will be. :goodjob:

@Warpstorm: When mentioning C&P units I am obviously speaking about the gaming community and custom units ! ! :rolleyes:

Both we and Firaxis use 3DS Max
Contrary to what you say I haven't seen ANY unit U made for Civ3- there should be lots, right ?!?!? None :confused: ? How come ?

How many people in this forum have used 3d programs to make units in the past 3+ years, and just how many years did it take the first one to make a 3d unit for the game ??? Almost about two years, and its not even a full dozen of people who ever did so, and only three or four have created the whole lot of newest units, while hundreds over hundreds made their requests without making a single unit.

So now everybody knows- learn to use 3d programs or die - and pray to god the game makers don't use FSDS2/Multi instead of Gmax ;)

edit: if I may just quote one of the most notorious and controversial civ3 unit creators (who, by the way, uses 3d animation, including 3dMax- I'm sure every modder has added one of his hundreds of planes or some of his great ships) who recently, after hearing the next Civ installment will feature 3d gave the following statement: "I won't make **** for Civ IV !!!"

I'd say, that kinda reflects the way 3d creators feel about Firaxis changing their standards...

Woah! This thread got HEATed!

I love the reason yoshi's post got edited: " Reason: bypassing auto-censor"

hahaha ;p

I wonder if they will offer the option of locking the camera etc like in Dawn of War so as to prevent needless strain on the operating computer.

Also, maybe the combat will look really really cool! Lets get positive! Sid has done good by us in the past, and I am hopeful that he and the crew will pump out something pretty, well designed, and fun (although maybe not in that order).

I mean seriously, how many companies have you heard of that actively talked to members of the online communities to find out what they wanted in the next version?

The biggest problem with 3 was the intolerably bad multiplayer. And they fixed it... eventually... for some serious $$$ ;p

Besides, have you guys tried Pirates yet? The graphics AND the engine are quite nice there (although the city combat is tiresome, snail-like, and ridiculously easy to win...), and they are apparently using the same system for 4. Plus, my four year old laptop (which was never top of the line) is able to run the game quite well.

Take heart, oh yea of little faith! ;p

The advantage of having 3D-unit models is that is makes easier modifing already done units.

You can for example just reskin exsiting unit and get something completly different.

Or just remove one weapon and add another (while keeping rest same).


P.S.
I've seen a lot of this in NwN mods.

Contrary to what you say I haven't seen ANY unit U made for Civ3- there should be lots, right ?!?!? None :confused: ? How come ?


Could be because I have absolutely no interest in making them. Could be because I'm not an artist.

Incidentally, I've never requested one either.

The 3-D graphics have a very claymation/stopmation look to them. They aren't cartoony, just very different.

I think given what Firaxis is aiming for, this look is the best way to go, as a realistic graphics set would likely be far more taxing on all CPUs.

I like it.

Civ and real time? I must only laugh :lol:

True. The devs think that games are much better and involve much more strategy if they are turn-based.

The land battle portion of Pirates! was originally planned to be Real Time, but just months before release of the game, Sid (and probably other staff) was not happy about it still, and they scrapped it with a much, much better turn-based mode.

Shows two things:
1. They aren't afraid to change things in the name of fun
2. Civ will never be RTS. Hell, that's what has established Civ's name, the turn based portion of it! :D

The advantage of having 3D-unit models is that is makes easier modifing already done units.

You can for example just reskin exsiting unit and get something completly different.

Or just remove one weapon and add another (while keeping rest same).


P.S.
I've seen a lot of this in NwN mods.
True, that's why I voiced interest in a Firaxian 3d Paperdoll Editor for civ iv:

Firaxis ought to include either a paperdoll editor, allowing changing clothes, equipment, armament as well as colours, and/or a way of utilizing other, non 3d units

For Warpstorm is very right; the tediousness of making units the c&p way makes one lose interest pretty fast. Exactly the reason Paperdoll's'd be the only best option in a 3d Civ IV modding world- cuz the 3d creators are scarce in this forum (the great Civ2 Site, Apolyton for instance failed to atract flicster artists to its site, thus became obsolete once Civ3 arrived- its gonna be a whole new world...and "we" are still not used to it) :p

I kinda hope they dont add a paperdoll modeler, because 1) that will probably up the price a bit, considering how much Poser costs, and 2) I just paid for Poser and I would really like to get more than 5-6 months of use out of it ;p

However, the ease of making changes to existing units because of 3Dness is something I hadnt considered. That would make life so so so much easier!

Have there been any other GOOD 3D TBS games? Or any others period? I wonder how that has turned out in other franchises?

This change to 3D is in part to cut the costs for the developer. I'll let you in on a dirty little secret. These days, 3D is cheaper to do than 2D if you have a lot of animations.

So that's it...and stupid me thought it was the company giving in to market pressure. ;)


I mean seriously, how many companies have you heard of that actively talked to members of the online communities to find out what they wanted in the next version?

Very few. Hence the state of the industry (aside from shooters where it doesn't take much to figure out what players want). Even so, how much of that player input actually makes it to the beta stage? Very little that wouldn't have even without player input (just look at Civ3).
Market forces are what drive any company, regardless of the good intentions some within the company may have; shareholders don't REALLY have much of a say and we aren't even that!

About Pirates and Civ4: Pirates doesn't have the level of complexity that Civ does so it's not a fair comparison.


BTW, just to be clear:

I don't care about the look (and if I did, it can be modded). What I care about is the wasting of system resources on graphics when they could go to other things that will make for more interesting play.

I'm a strategy gamer (aside from occasonally indulging in some FPS carnage to let off some steam ;) ) so as far as I am concerned, they can use still pics of stick men as units for all I care as long as the startegy element is ripe for in-depth play (i.e. a brain-stimulating challenge).

If 3D costs no more system resources than 2D, then so be it...but that isn't the case.

Just look at the difference between Warcraft 2 and Warcraft 3: the latter's a byte-guzzler that does nothing but gobble down your system's resources only to give you stupid 3D scenes and practically the same play you had in the previous installment. (In fact, the only thing that justifies it--in Warcraft but not in Civ--is that you can rotate the view to see behind stuff.)

Now, based on what warpstorm said, you'd think using 3D will cut costs so they can spend less time on graphics (units at least) and more time on the game itself, but AFAIK all this means is that they will save money, period (i.e. cutting costs doesn't necessarily mean that what they save will then go to work on the game).

And again, cutting costs when you have what comes out to be a monopoly (i.e. a unique niche in the market that you alone are free to exploit) is plain cheap IMO.

If the guys at Firaxis are so into this genre, why don't they just cut the crap and make a solid game that gives everybody what they want (within reason), make gaming history (again...but really this time) and be done with it already. Why keep us always waiting to see what slightly new, glossed over change we can pay through the nose for, naively hoping that the next Civ will finally be what we've been asking for all this time?


And now, the hyterical rant you've all come to love and cherish:

I DON'T GIVE A CRAP ABOUT GRAPHICS AND IF YOU'RE REALLY A STRATEGY GAMER NEITHER SHOULD YOU!

I WANT SOMETHING REALLY WORTH SPENDING TIME PLAYING: FULLY-FUNCTIONAL AI, LOGISTICS, INTERNAL UPRISINGS, POPULATION MOVEMENT, CHANGING WEATHER CONDITIONS THAT HAVE AN EFFECT ON PRODUCTION AND COMBAT, CLASS DIVISIONS, NATIONAL POPULATION MOOD, FLEXIBLE DIPLOMACY, BE ABLE TO TRADE ANY ITEM, AN REAL COMBAT SYSTEM, HAVE A FULLY-INTEGRATED SCRIPTING LANGUAGE AND SO MUCH F-ING MORE...BE ABLE TO MOD EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING (INCLUDING THE AI), BE ABLE TO ADD ANY AMOUNT OF ITEMS TO ANY TYPE...AND NO HARD-CODED B.S.!

(And yes, I am aware that Civ4 may--MAY--include some of the features mentioned above.)

Give me that and I will shut up forever...or at least a few years....months......weeks.

:p

Btw- mid 2004 saw this list made for a joint project on creating a pc strategy game that would eventualy never take off. Made well before the first ever announcement of the upcomming Civ4, it includes all those things Civ3 lacks, but that had been seen on several other engines (in some cases MUCH older and technologicaly outdated games). These were all gaming-related; not a single one read 3d until I added the units section well ahead of this discussion, yet for all those who haven't seen this it might yet be worth while your time taking a peek, as its also some sort of amalgamated wishlist of many a strategy veteran.

edit: ... and judging from the few available ones, I deduce: 90%+ of civvers don't like Munits (?)

... and judging from the few available ones, I deduce: 90%+ of civvers don't like Munits (?)

I don't generally like Munits. However, I have seen them in scenarios as barbarians and they looked ok. I'd prefer normal units, but it's each to their own isn't it?

Hopefully, we'll see some new screenshots soon!

edit: if I may just quote one of the most notorious and controversial civ3 unit creators (who, by the way, uses 3d animation, including 3dMax- I'm sure every modder has added one of his hundreds of planes or some of his great ships) who recently, after hearing the next Civ installment will feature 3d gave the following statement:

I'd say, that kinda reflects the way 3d creators feel about Firaxis changing their standards...

Intresting. I'll have to ask him about that train of thought.:hmm:

BTW saying he's controversial is putting it rather midly. :p ;) :D

Gamespot seems to think there will be another preview of civ4, this time in the March issue of Computer Games:

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/civilizationiv/index.html

It looks like this is where we'll be getting our info next, rather than from the firaxis website ...

Gamespot seems to think there will be another preview of civ4, this time in the March issue of Computer Games:

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/civilizationiv/index.html

It looks like this is where we'll be getting our info next, rather than from the firaxis website ...


This is a magazine I think. It has been there for some time now.
The same thing happened with PC gamer before '05.

unfortionatley the censorship at my school will not empower me to view such an article, anything with the word games init, it wont let me view. please tell if it suggest a lengthly article with new screenshots, because if so i will buy the magazine, and if not ill donate what i save to the Civilization 4 Foundation of Research and Development

How about weather, and Natural disasters... [Tsunamis, Earthquakes, Blizzards(Tundra), Droughts, Floods, Hurricanes(In select Places on each map), Twisters (Plains)....

Now just editing this...i should have read the rest of the pages... There is alot tho..

Only saw these screenshots today... Seems that they are using the same design principles as in Pirates! land battles. In fact, the munits and graphics remind me very much of that game.

Still, the graphics are clearly early stage. We can only hope that the final program code is not as inefficient as it is in Pirates! (where you need a top-of-the-line comp to play the land battles at an acceptable speed).

Only saw these screenshots today... Seems that they are using the same design principles as in Pirates! land battles. In fact, the munits and graphics remind me very much of that game.

Still, the graphics are clearly early stage. We can only hope that the final program code is not as inefficient as it is in Pirates! (where you need a top-of-the-line comp to play the land battles at an acceptable speed).

Yup, that's true. SMP! sill will require a better comp than the final version of Civ IV (my guess) because there are more scenes in that game. Swordfighting, ship battles, etc. And these are the ones which tend to slow you down or require better specs.

In fact, I recently downloaded a demo of another new 3D strategy game which just came out. Looks amazing, but will run better on lower-end systems than Pirates!. I should also note that that game and SMP have the exact rough system requirements, yet one will run better as said.

What are MUNITS?

What are MUNITS?
Multifigure-units

Yup, that's true. SMP! sill will require a better comp than the final version of Civ IV (my guess) because there are more scenes in that game. Swordfighting, ship battles, etc. And these are the ones which tend to slow you down or require better specs.
What makes you think about 200+ 3D units running around on a 250x250 map in the Modern Age with 30 players in Simultaneous Mode would have fewer requirements than SMP?

To those of you with average systems: be prepared to upgrade.


BTW, for those of you who frequently bring up the 'why should we pay more for...' arguement: where are you now?


P.S. I never liked 3D units because they have a tendency to look like toys unless you put a HUGE amount of detail into them--that costs you system resources. (You can do this with 2D images at a fraction the cost.)

(IMO, 2D graphics are fine...just get a better artist and make them more generic so they don't look out of place.)

What makes you think about 200+ 3D units running around on a 250x250 map in the Modern Age with 30 players in Simultaneous Mode would have fewer requirements than SMP?

I never said that the final specs for Civ IV will be less than in Pirates!.
What I said was that Pirates has more scenes (such as swordfighting) which would need for your system to be a little better.

The basic ship sailing, or land battle portion is probably equivalent to playing a 3D strategy game (again, because they are similar scenes).

So when will more images be made available?

So when will more images be made available?

I can't read minds, but I'm about 99% sure that they'll come out this month sometime. :)

Don't quote me on it!

guys and maybe girls if they use this dont u think that the picture for sunday march 6th is a pic for Civilization II maybe? coz designers are far better then that i mean come on!! :)

Can't wait to see some new shots... may have to buy that magazine if none come out soon.

Maybe April will be a better month... 'cause March is finishing, and still no news...

Hello everyone btw !
This is a French Fan that lives in Chile, South America, and has played Civ 1 since it came out in 1992 ! ;)

At your service, Bohemians Emperor of the Worlds and better manager than Solomon the Wise ! ahaahah... :king:

Umm, someone point it out if i'm being retarded, but where can I see the screenshots on the net? I'm not sure we get that magazine in NZ. So many google image searches for different combinations of "Civ 4" and "screenshots" has got me nowhere...

Umm, someone point it out if i'm being retarded, but where can I see the screenshots on the net? I'm not sure we get that magazine in NZ. So many google image searches for different combinations of "Civ 4" and "screenshots" has got me nowhere...

The screenshots from PC Gamer which were originally posted here were removed at the magazine's request, because we are not really allowed to post them here as they are Copy Protected...

The screenshots from Game Informer no one has scanned and posted yet because I assume they are aware that posting of the new screenshots is not allowed. :)

Damnit damnit damnit. DAMNIT!!!! Ah well. I figured as much, but I thought someone on some less, err, law-abiding site may have put them up. But alas...

But I like the idea of having squares again. It'll take me back to playing Civ 1 on my friend's old 286 - it was such a crap computer, that 3 times out of 4 when you turned it on, the fuse in the monitor would blow. We'd go to the electronics store, spend $5 (usually all we had) on a small handful of fuses, and try our luck... once we got the monitor going, we wouldn't turn it off till the game was well and truly over.

Ok, I know it is probably an old screenshot but for me it is new and has some info on it, so I attach it...

For example: see the map in the bottom-right corner - is it showing only the world the player knows in a way that starting location is centered? :)
And you do not know where are you on the total map? :)

Well Spotted, V. Soma, I had never noticed that when I looked at it before.
It does gel very well with things that Soren was saying last year-how he liked the idea of a map which 'expanded' as you explored more of the terrain. I think it will definitely help sustain the mystery of each game longer, if it proves true :)!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

That would be a nice touch. Heaven knows that if I'm generally "south" on the map, I'll push hard north, with only a slight push into the south. In a lot of ways, it's kind of like cheating, except that it's perfectly legal and obvious that's what I should do.

Or maybe the map is just a very small one. ;)

I wonder how those four unit heads work... It could just be a graphical finesse, but it could possibly also have more meaning. So that for example if you build 1 horseman in a city, that's fine, and you control it just as you do in civ3. But if you build 1 or 2 more, those will automatically join together with the first to create a sort of horseman army automatically (showing up as 2 or 3 horsemen in one "lump" on the screen).

This could be useful in some situations. For example, it could help on the spearman / tank thing. Before, having 4 spearmen in a city would make it invulnerable to being captured by one single tank in one turn. Say that the AI has 4 spearmen in a city, then they will constitute 1 "unit" together, and when your lone tank attacks, it can kill off all four spearman (counting them as 1 "unit") in 1 attack.

Also, some have complained about the infinite stack ability in civ III being unfair. (lining up 200 artillery + 100 cavalry + 100 riflemen in ONE square isn't really feasible in the real world). If my unit head theory is true, then they could perhaps put a restriction on, say, 20 such groups of units in the same square.

I dunno, just a thought.

Personally, I think the graphics (even at this very early stage) look fairly impressive -- granted, it's no Doom III, but it's looking good. But, in the end, gameplay is the only thing that will make this game sink or swim. Here's to hoping.

-V

I really do not care what anyone says, this game looks great!

Those are the old graphics (look at the date of this thread). You should check out some of the newer ones in the gallery. They are really nice.

Or maybe the map is just a very small one. ;)

nah, it was stated in one of the articles that the minimap is zoomed to the land that you've explored so that you don't know where you are in the big picture.

edit: damn, i worded that horribly.