Just curious what people think, as quite a few don't like the "feel" of the graphics as they stand right now.

What games do you think have the best graphical feel that would fit Civ IV? Screenshots are certainly welcome to give people an impression of what you're talking about. :)

It should look like polished and detailed. Shining and attractive. Real eye candy that is. :)

Have an example? ;)

They have Pirates to take measure, or Anno 1503. Yet I still would prefer a beefed up Snoopy's from Civ3, transformed in 3D. It must be 3D, people demand it - not me, but the bad people. :)

Both CivIII and the screenies of CivIV we've seen look a bit too much like a happy toy land. I'd like a darker, more "abstract" look.

Can't think of a good example to refer to, tho. Something half-way 'tween the toyland look of CivIII and the abstraction of CivII, perhaps.

I want realism. I want a sense that the land I have is important, much like real people have an attachment to their homeland. The graphics would have to be very polished, 3D, able to zoom between world and ground level flawlessly (maybe a combination of civ3 and total war), and, maybe even have things like night and day and weather patterns, for aesthetic value only of course (I know it's a turn based game, but it would still be cool).

I kind of like the cooler, darker, feel of "Womok's Terrain"
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads3/GMLib_Terr_Full_WomokStd_Small.jpg
It's what I'm using right now!

Both CivIII and the screenies of CivIV we've seen look a bit too much like a happy toy land. I'd like a darker, more "abstract" look.

Can't think of a good example to refer to, tho. Something half-way 'tween the toyland look of CivIII and the abstraction of CivII, perhaps.

I don't think the tile or unit graphics in civ3 looked like a happy toy land , it had a very good atmosphere that was very appropriate for a historical grandeur.

i found the tile mods much more toyish, including Sn00pys which I felt was kind of amateurish looking

i think the interface though looked toyish, with the cartoonish advisors shiny colors, large text. it would be nice if they tried to make it more serious and mature with a historical feel. like for instance the interface in Imperialism ii, or like how in age of empires there was some bas relief from the specific culture

I'm not sure what 'dark' would mean.

I think a more watercolor look :)

Seriously, I agree with brianshapiro. I would like it to look classy with an air of elegance and antiquity. Marble, bas relief, columns, carvings...

Or maybe watercolor...

Pastels...

On a serious note I would like a lighter but serious look. I don't want a depressing game. With the 3d engine it may be possible to chnage the look of the game as time goe son as well. I do agree I want an interface that has a grand feeling.

I would like it to look classy with an air of elegance and antiquity. Marble, bas relief, columns, carvings...
I would like that too. It would give the game a more epic feel. One thing I like about games such as RoN or AoK is that the interface appearance changes as you advance to a new age. It's a nice touch.

As for the terrain graphics, personally I prefer more natural looking graphics.

Wow, can't imagine WHY you would want a watercolour look, Warpstorm ;)!

Seriously, though, I agree with the guy who said a Beefed up version of Snoopy's terrain-that is the one I use in Civ3 ALL the time now, and its just SOOOO good to look at-and in 3D it would look incredibly AWESOME!!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I think the issue is that Civ4 will be using a 3D engine.

We just want to see something similar to Womoks/Watercolor/ whatever, and mainly agree that the Interface should look more "mature".

OK, they should make a prettier interface, perhaps even interface "skins" for the modders among us.

But how shall the game graphics look? The engine they used has potential, and I HOPE that many of the used terrain graphics will get an overhaul - who knows, perhaps they look better on screen, but the screen on paper, scanned, brought back to screen as JPG, looks really awful.

I don't think the tile or unit graphics in civ3 looked like a happy toy land , it had a very good atmosphere that was very appropriate for a historical grandeur.
Then we'll have to disagree. To me, a chubby T-34 rolling across bright green grassland next to a snow-capped mountain scarcely taller than itself looks quite like a happy toy land indeed.
I'm not sure what 'dark' would mean.
You might want to peruse an English dictionary ... :p

Darker colors, simply.

Something like HOMM4 would be nice. I actually like the "toy&cartoon" drawings.

I don´t kike this new toy&cartoon look, really. I preffer a more serious look, more realistic this is too "kiddie" (Not sure if this is the correct word but you get the idea)
It´s not like you are leading a Civilization but like playing with little toys and that was fun and all but that was years ago, and I´m not interested in going back, at least that´s how I feel :)

I think Womok's terrain style would be an excellent base to build upon, civ3 default terrain graphics are somewhat dull, IMO.

I could go as extreme as a cartoon and as extreme as making most of the art based on photographs. I expect it to lean towards more the former, since that's how a lot of 3D games turn out.

I really don't care if the game will have cartoony graphics or not, I just want the gameplay to be good.

Actually, I think that going 3D was a rather unfortunate decision, I'd be satisfied with an updated 2D engine...

Alex, Civ 3 graphics were made with 3d, other than Civ IVs look the only thing that will be different is that sprites will be rendered with math instead of static images.

The problem with realism/photolike is that it will take the most high end computers to gain that effect. The makers of the TV show Babylon 5 knew this so their goal wasn't to make the spacecraft look realistic, but to make it look good. If units were any smaller then the map will become cumbersome and cluttered. I know very well that the tank on my screen isn't the actual size of a tank but a representation of an army of tanks. This isn't a tactical game its a stratagy game. Heck, you don't see people complaining that a pawn is half the size of a queen and they the player is using midgits as cannon fodder!

I want it to be more realistic, instead of the cartoonish units that shipped with the game.Details for units and cities would be nice too, instead of everything being generic, perhaps they could make it so each city will be different in its own way and show buildings it has built in the worldmap (in forms of extra buildings or something), so more developed cities are more "cluttered" with structures.

I don't want it to look realistic. I also don't like Womok's terrain (it's a love it or hate it thing. I think it's dark, ugly, and dreary but I can understand why other people would like it). I reckon it should only look nice with brighter colours, and as long as everything is clear (ie; units, cities, differences in terrain, etc.) I'll have no complaints.

If you mean overhaul graphics, I'd say : let's go for an epic feeling, like TF said. I want marble, stone, wood and steel. I want realistic-looking leaders. I want realistic terrain, but easily identifiable. Maybe a different set of background graphics for each tribe could be a very, very nice addition (Greekish borders on marble for Greece, a "fleur de lys" theme for France, etc...).

What I REALLY don't want is the game to go cartoonesque, like did SimCity 3000 (don't know what SimCity 4 did), and maybe other games. I just hate it. :mad: Please no more leaders like Civ3's Genghis Khan or Ceasar !!! :cry:

well I don't want it photorealistic, but that doesn't mean cartoony.

TRIP asks an excellent question. If you've followed the complaints about the original Civ III designs (and I was one of the carpers; it irritated me that so many of the different areas - terrain, in-city, final score, "All your base are belong to us" screen, silly warrior whacking the bell - were different and disunited), and if you've followed many of the proposed "improvements", you'll see that there are MANY diverging ideas out there of what would make Civ look good - and they're not terribly convincing. With all respect to the modders who put so much work in, I dare say none really improved Firaxis' designs! Even the terrific SnoOpy had trouble improving on roads and mountains (only his coastlines were indisputably better). So, that argues that Firaxis know what they're doing, right? Right? Problem is, the Civ 4 graphics look like they suck to more people than ever complained about III. There's a radical change towards "kiddie" and "toybox" that I think actually - almost - insults the intelligence of people who take the game seriously. People who spend hundreds of hours playing!
OK, so, my answer to TRIP's question: Civ 4 should look like it takes military, political and cultural history SERIOUSLY. It doesn't have to be grim and it doesn't have to be photorealistic, but it shouldn't resemble a box of toys for kids in diapers. Now, to come clean, the great generals (Napoleon et al.) did actually use toys to map out strategies, but these toys looked serious! Check out these links for modern toy gamers models: http://www.sierratoysoldier.com/; http://www.michtoy.com/; http://www.toy-soldier.com/ and ESPECIALLY http://www.upnaway.com/~obees/soldiers/. These so-called toys pay some respect to the people who toiled and fought, etc.

Come on. The graphics are pretty good - at least when comparing it to civ III. the trees in civ III was all cluttered up. Who would want to use maximum zoom in anyway? I am satisfied :goodjob:

http://www.bighugegames.com/riseoflegends/popup_screen_5.html

Need I say more?

I grew up playing wargames on a map with a square (in the case of Tactics II) or hexagon grid. I like how we now have screenshots of cities that don't have all thatched roofs on the houses. I have no problem with the current screenshots, OTHER THAN:

FOREST/JUNGLE: I would like forests where trees are more proportional to city buildings. Where a single tree is not bigger around than 1 or 2 small buildings, and may be smaller. Adjust height appropriately.

In addition to different forest types (evergreen and not), there might also be solid, dense forests and less dense forest, in addition to forests which are "clumpy" with open spaces intermixed (I'm referring to within a single tile) where movement might not be restricted, but may still offer defense advantages.

UNITS: Before the machine gun arrives, I would like units to be in line abreast, not in a staggered triangle. See Multi-Figure Units> Roman Legion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=44630), using just one rank.
Actually, I wouldn't mind MULTIPLE units in a tile displayed one behind the other, which could be possible in line abreast. Obviously, not necessarily all units in a stack would be displayed. Post machine gun, the current staggering is fine with me.

Unit Stacking Medallions seem to be color-coded by movement or strength status. Could they also be shaped or otherwise prettied up to indicate unit type, such as foot, bombardment, horse, naval & air? Embed the NATO unit symbols on the medallions potentially.

EDIT: Scrap, I just noticed that Trip started this thread late LAST YEAR. Probably a little late for adjustments now. Maybe for the next version.

http://www.bighugegames.com/riseoflegends/popup_screen_5.html

Need I say more?

The Rise of Legends engine is utterly beautiful, but I suspect that it might be a bit too small-scale for Civ.

I suspect that they had a little bit bigger budget to draw upon also...

well they could always use an Edward Hopper kind of approach- clear, nice color balance, a bit bland- illustration-like -with nice cool shadows that melt onto the landscape and features- seems like that would be safe and acceptable to most-
Course i would rather have a Bosch like chaos - where one needs to create order
admist a quagmire of discordant colors and implied textures and movement and sounds
(to me beauty is like a wild horse- not tamed- unlike many who seem to prefer clarity and order)
I would suggest go one way or another- that middle road is never a good choice - either loose- (painterly)Romantic or tight (linear)Classic
but i kinda like the graphics i have seen so far. (stylized? ..- dunno- but strange)
I don't think any game has great graphics (in so far as life-even Rome total war battles and graphics which are impressive- still look like computer generated imagery)- they all look stiff and "computer animated"...i suspect someone will figure it out and blow everyone away in the future.
That legends screen shot looks like a sci fi illustration - and uses "illuminosity in the mist" tricks - and an analogous color scheme- blues and greens with white highlights...yawn- the world is full of color if u are really using ur eyes ....impressionism was not expressionism- it was optical realism

Just curious what people think, as quite a few don't like the "feel" of the graphics as they stand right now.

What games do you think have the best graphical feel that would fit Civ IV? Screenshots are certainly welcome to give people an impression of what you're talking about. :)



I for one find the new graphics atrocious! It's as though Firaxis dumped the contents of a garbage can into a sewer and then animated what emerged. I can create better graphics on the old Commodore 64 I keep in my car! In fact, I think I will!

Graphics don't matter! Why is Firaxis even bothering with 3-d??? They're trying to attract new fans with by updating their look, but that's foolish! They're dumbing things down! The few thousand dedicated fans who visit here regularly would be more than enough to keep the series alive. Yes, I know that would mean they would have to raise the price of the game up to $500 a pop, but if you're truly a fan of strategy genre, you'll do it!

I believe they should have taken a bold, innovative step backward and posted not just 2-d, but as basic as possible. How avant garde! How retro! How classy!

Bah! I have worked myself back up into a frothing, ranting madness again. Time for my horse tranquilized, I guess. Here are the graphics that I will write into the game as soon as I learn what XML is, or not. I don't care. Whatever.


ps: the first is the leaderhead who will serve for all leaders. Who needs variety? I can just imagine the crown atop Queen Victoria or the wooden teeth of George Wasington.

And the awesome cities and terrain. :eek: Aren't they great?! :drool: I can't wait.

Erm, I'm always saying how graphics are not that important for TBS games.

But looking at the two previous posts I have second thoughts on that :P :D


Hi Trip. Thanks for dropping by.

The graphics that I'd like for Civilization (whether it's IV or V) are those seen in Rome's Total War Imperial Campaign Map The sound effects of the birds chirping when you zoom the camera to a forest, or the waves lapping on the seashore when you zoom on them. They are truly superb.

They are also WYSIWYG, as in Civ IVs albeit have a more distinct sense of realism to them, or "seriousness". The landmarks, luxuries are all clear and well defined, you can also zoom up and down on the map.

The graphics in Civ III look more mature and less cartoon-like comparing with Civ IV. They appeal more to me. Civ IVs are kind of childish and those extremely bright colours I'm not sure are good for the eyes after playing five hours or more. Perhaps a lighter palette would be more suitable and prove less strenous on our eyesight.

Also the units of RTW in the imperial campaign map are just near perfect for civ. They almost feel like realistic chess-pieces with built-in animation.

I would -very- humbly suggest you guys took a close look at RTWs imperial campaign graphics.

A blend of RTW's Imperial Campaign graphics and Civilization's universe would make a game no player could stop buying and playing. It would be a dream game.

Most people I think are whining on the bright cartoonish (leaderheads included) graphics. They also seem like "thrown about" on the screen and kind of lack an homogeneity to them.

Also all those multiunits seem to clutter the screen creating confusion. I guess that seen on motion everything will add up ...

I strongly believe that RTWs graphics blend perfectly with the game.

Anyway, the graphics of Civ III were very good, and were light years away from Civ II.

I like the civIII grafix. Might put in some more detail, but keep them clear. In some case I can´t make heads or tails form the grafix.
Would like to be able to zoom out, so I can watch more cities in one screen.

Hi Trip. Thanks for dropping by.


Look at the date, Trip was on a year ago.

Drakan's post of Rome Total War's graphics is exactly what I'd expect for Civ IV. Dang, that looks so much better. Why didn't they do that? Oh well. What a bummer.

Well, I do like the Civ IV cities better, though.

i like the graphics...but i think at the same time they really take away from the imagination..and by that i mean i feel that these graphics are kinda cartoony and light and will make it really really hard to imagine that im running a huge and all powerfull empire...the seem very localized and they also seem to help loose the scense of a empire.... i mean cows and windmills?? there cool..but i dont think they need to be that large and silly looking..lol...i want something dark..big ...worthy of my empires..i guess i just like serious over silly :mischief:

Look at the date, Trip was on a year ago.


Duh. You're right !

The thread has been resurrected. I thought it was really odd for them to put such a thread when the game was going to be released in a couple of months.

The RTW graphics are a mess really. Beautiful to some extent but not my cup of tea.

Drakan's post of Rome Total War's graphics is exactly what I'd expect for Civ IV. Dang, that looks so much better. Why didn't they do that? Oh well. What a bummer.

Well, I do like the Civ IV cities better, though.


I wouldn't be surprised if Civ4 can acheive something similar - if not better.

It just takes someone some time and effort. That screenshot is similar to what I will be attempting first.

I wouldn't be surprised if Civ4 can acheive something similar - if not better.

It just takes someone some time and effort. That screenshot is similar to what I will be attempting first.
Bless you! You are a civ saint!

If I do ever decide to get the game, I will be looking to mod you in as one of my Civ's Great Artists! :goodjob:

The one thing I'd like to see are denser forests like in RTW.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/sidpirates/screens.html?page=222

like this... the funny thing is, that is pirates as well, yet for some reason they used the engine for when you land, not when your sailing, cause the sailing part is lovely. Lots of light and color, textures are deep.

I never understood why they used the other one, when it was so much duller

Draken's RTW shot has me slavering to buy that game, even though i have heard some terrible things about some aspects of it. Saved the image regardless.

A toast is to Snoopy's future artwork!

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/sidpirates/screens.html?page=222

like this...

Exactly. That's what I want.

Exactly. That's what I want.


I'm interested to see if it can be achieved.

Thanks Snoopy for your effort, we truly appreciate it. :goodjob:

Jaybe: RTW is a very good game, it's not as deep as CivIII, but it's sure worthwile buying it. And there are some spectacular mods which are about to be released.

I want blood, and the land is splatter with blood and detached arm and legs when units is fighting each other.
It'll look better in 3D.

I think the focus on pretty 3d graphics has ruined gaming in the last 10 years. So many games nowadays revolve around physics and graphics rather than gameplay.

EDIT: <Deleted>

This is what I think they should look like: http://www.civfanatics.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=515&original=1&c=2

One of the things in Civ III that makes every game different and have it's own personality and feeling was the maps, and wanting to conquer and own different areas. I think this has been improved, and I'm eager to play on a map like this one.

If I'm purple, I definately want to expand to have that nice lake up there, and if I'm yellow, those impassible mountains would do better if they were inside my territory.

This is what I think they should look like: http://www.civfanatics.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=515&original=1&c=2

One of the things in Civ III that makes every game different and have it's own personality and feeling was the maps, and wanting to conquer and own different areas. I think this has been improved, and I'm eager to play on a map like this one.

If I'm purple, I definately want to expand to have that nice lake up there, and if I'm yellow, those impassible mountains would do better if they were inside my territory.
[offtopic] One thing that always bothered me in Civ3 is that you cant pick you're own color from the setup screen, I always play as green in other games and cant stand to be pink or brown, so i play as the Greeks most of the time (plus I like the Hoplites) does anyone know if they changed this in Civ4? I know you can always go in and change it in the editor but it should be an option in the setup screen!

@ joethreeblah, I like that first screenshot so much i just made it my wallpaper and wow does it look nice it almost feels like im playing right now!