What do you want in Civ 4? 3D screen or 2D interface?

Personally I perfer 2D because 3D lags too much on my computer. :(

Well mate, what do you expect? New games always go hand in hand with new hardware requirements. Always been that way.

2D. An isometric, classical 3D view is just way to go for a round based strategy game.

A 3D world, perhaps even a globe, would perhaps look nice - but would be hard to play and control. All who want that should accept that this will limit depth and complexity a lot.

a near 3D isometric 2d map as in Civ3 has its advantages. They could work out the hills and mountains and make the map rotateable perhaps instead of going 3D... or do it simply and call the 2D "3D" for marketing reasons... to appease the 3D-shooter-crowd... :P

I think this is the wrong question to ask. What does it matter, significantly, if it's 2D or 3D? Clear game elements can be made in either form. The UI is nearly independent of the dimensions of the graphics.

From what I've heard from some modders, it'll probably be EASIER to do different units without the need to render an inherently 3D object into 2D. I don't know enough to say, but I would have a tendency to believe them.

I've also heard/read that the load on the main CPU is LESS with 3D, assuming you have a 3D card, which a lot of computers have these days. This is because the imaging is off-loaded to the card and doesn't drain the main CPU's resources as much. Again, I don't know to say for sure, but it sounds plausible.

No answer, because I don't CARE....as long as the elements work. As long as they clearly provide information -- all the information -- about that unit/terrain or some of the info about a city or other main feature, I'm fine with it. It's not the style of graphics -- it's how they are used.

Arathorn

Good question...
I think everybody prefers the better (3D) graphic mode BUT they're lots of ugly 3D games and lots of beautiful 2D games...
3D!

I would have loved to have a debate about this, however as I understand it is an academic question. It is going to be 3D and work is already well underway.

I know a few casual Civ players that don't have heavy 3D cards and have no real incentive to get one either, so I doubt they will be investing in Civ4 anytime soon.

My main worry about 3D is if it is going to make moving units and checking up on cities etc. take longer time - which is a worry I am puzzled that the real hardcore advocates for the 3D version don't have as they are also the same people saying Civ3 takes too long to play as it is. Moving about in 3D perspective could very well prove more time consuming pr. turn. On the other hand who knows what clever ideas they got at Firaxis for handling this :)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it! I don't see what 3D would add to the game. In many other games which have "gone 3D" it has hindered rather than helped gameplay. I can only thing of Mechcommander 2 off the top of my head, the original was a great game, but the sequal had crazy requirements, redundant full 3D, and an amazing bad AI - they spent too long on the graphics...

3D IMO has no place in third person turn based, or real time stratagy games.

3D

Anyone who has played AoM or RoN can attest to the added detail and immersive quality of 3D.

Anyone who has played AoM or RoN can attest to the added detail and immersive quality of 3D.
Those 2 are RTS games though. It is also my impression they intend to keep Civ4 a TBS game like all previous version of Civ.

The Great Apple, I must agree - I think MC2 looked quite good, but not so much better than the original, and it lacked in gameplay - the original had much more nifty and interesting missions somehow.

I hope the "3D" is only a beefed up semi-3D-view. That would look very nice!

Those 2 are RTS games though. It is also my impression they intend to keep Civ4 a TBS game like all previous version of Civ.

And what coding difficulties would be presented for TBS? I really don't think 3D should present issues for TBS in any way.

2D, my hardware is stretched enough on big maps of civ 3 with many races. I can't see how adding 3d in civ 4 could help specifically in any way besides makeing the game look "cool", they should stick with the tried and true turn-based strategy 2d board.

It could look something like this:

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads7/3d_render.jpg

(No, I didn't make this, it was a code sample I found)

Granted, it might have effects like water-levels that you can "see" (transparent water). That way, you can see your own subs.

And what coding difficulties would be presented for TBS? I really don't think 3D should present issues for TBS in any way.
Coding difficulties? I am not quite sure what you mean.
The problems lies in the inherit differences in how you normally control a RTS game and how you normally control a TBS.

Ie. then in a RTS game you normally move units by marking single units or groups of units and then clicking where they go - and they will go about their way in a somewhat loose manner and often push each other aside ending up only approximately where you wanted them. While in a TBS game you normally move units from exact poistions to exact poistions and moving through exactly specified areas, and what I worry about is that this is going to require a lot more work for the player in a real 3D environment to achieve.

2D. An isometric, classical 3D view is just way to go for a round based strategy game.

I couldn't have said it better myself. 2d isometric is the way to go. I have yet to see an interface for a 3d view that is as easy to use as a well designed 2d view, and if there isn't a need to be able to view something from all sides, why go 3d at all?

Thank you Chieftess - your example makes it easier to invisage exactly how it could become a lot more work to move units about on a 'wobbly' map like that ;)

Thank you Chieftess - your example makes it easier to invisage exactly how it could become a lot more work to move units about on a 'wobbly' map like that ;)

Yes, thanks Chieftess. :)

@Arathorn: Stop being so freaking reasonable. I long since lost count of how many threads in this subforum I've been intending to say something in, only to discover you've already said much the same thing.

They could go the SimCity 4 route and have the map viewable at a set number of angles. From Chieftess' suggestion they could also have an in-game map editor.

Seems like if they made the game 3D, it'd look a lot like Alpha Centauri. This would make every unit fully 3D as well,s ince you have to bae able to see odd parts of it while it goes down the backside of a hill. While this isn't a bad thing necessarily, it can strain some computers.

I wonder if the 3D format for units will make it easier or harder for unitmakers to make their own units for mods?

I wonder if the 3D format for units will make it easier or harder for unitmakers to make their own units for mods?

I think it will be harder if they turn Civ in 3D

3D. no question. And there's just one answer. "You have to go with the time"! I mean, since there are no pros and cons for both sides (see arathorns post), you have to go with the more modern way.

And besides, I doubt that many (!) new players will buy civ4 if it's in 2D. (because of the above reason). And remark, I said many new players, not all!

mfG mitsho

I wonder if the 3D format for units will make it easier or harder for unitmakers to make their own units for mods?

No different, maybe even easier. You'd have to ask a unit creator. The units are still rendered in 3D, even though they are sprites in the game.

Well, i probably would be waiting at the game shop doors before opening on the day that Civ 4 was to be released. But, now it's not 2D, i'll definately be checking out reviews and stuff before i think about it.

Why? Cause Some games just SHOULD NOT BE 3D. it's purely and simply a way to appeal to the mainstream brainless idiots (you know, the kids that think Mariah Carry is cool). Lets just hope that it's not going to be as bad as i'm guessing it's going to be.


http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/forums.asp?s=3&c=12&t=5209

At this point, I don't think it matters. CivIV will be in 3D, new releases always incorparate the latest and greatest technology. I just hope its not so wrapped up in 3D that it causes my computer to lag.

It's crazy how people ALWAYS complain about a game going to 3D.

People probably complained about Quake being 3D.

"But Doom is in 2D and it's perfect! And my computer will lag! You call 3D progress?!? I call it the DEVIL!!!"

From my understanding of the comments made by Soren, the game will be in 3D. However, the level of 3D immersion is not mentioned. There may be a globe view that enables you to zoom in and out and view the game almost 2D close up, then zoom out to a 3D globe, move the your view around and zoom back in. The game may play like AOM, being in 3D while still perserving a partial isometric view. There are lots of options available that produce a hybrid 3D/2D game world that would not detract from the game at all. Personally, I'm hoping for a 3D globe so that the poles actually become part of the world and the world feels more like a real world.

There are a few advantages to 3D. Zoom and the ability to adapt to any monitor size are 2 that come to mind off the top of my head.

Making units is easier for companies or individuals with the 3D tools than the 2D. I saw how the artists at Breakaway did the Conquests units. They would design all the units in 3D. Then they would render these down to 2D animations. The original 3D art was a lot better. It had more details and could be viewed from multiple angles.

Good 3D terrain would look a lot more immersive than a 2D map.

On high end systems there would be little CPU burden for the graphics as the video card would be doing the work.

Is 3D needed for Civ? No, I'd still play it if it used the old 'chit' style pieces from Civ1.

What are the down sides?

Low end systems could bog down or just plain not be able to run it.

If their artists aren't familiar with medium it could look bad. (Like I said, they already do all their artwork in 3D).

What doesn't (or at least shouldn't) matter?

Why would Firaxis change the keystrokes for moving units etc. just because they are going 3D? It's not like they said they were going away from a tiled-based turn-based game. If it were me, I wouldn't mess with that much.

AI

Depth of gameplay.

How will they handle land divisions on a true globe, though?

How will they handle land divisions on a true globe, though?

What do you mean?

@The Last Conformist: My apologies. I'll try to work on that. :p

Arathorn

Full 3D is mainly for shooters.
Strategy games can do well in 3D, e.g. Medieval Total War.

But Civ3 is tile-based, and it requires overview and turn-based play.
Civ4 will be turn-based afaik, the only "3D" that would make sense is something like the mentioned AoM style.

Finally, I liked the old Fallout / Fallout Tactics perspective a lot, those rendered 3D models either require lots of complex textures to look good or they simply look like polygons. I am a lover of 2D Art - I liked Mech Commander 1 much more than Mech Commander 2.

For Pirates! they are going this damned Warcraft III Comic Style, I hope that Civ4 gets a less cartoonish look.

For Pirates! they are going this damned Warcraft III Comic Style, I hope that Civ4 gets a less cartoonish look.

I wholeheartedly agree!

It could look something like this:

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads7/3d_render.jpg

(No, I didn't make this, it was a code sample I found)

Granted, it might have effects like water-levels that you can "see" (transparent water). That way, you can see your own subs.


I belive instead of a hillside being 100 tiles, it would serve better for it to count as just 1 tile.... allthough graphically suburbias and such could appear.

It's 2006. 2d games have gone the way of the do-do, and most average machines today can handle 3d games flawlessly.

i think that if it looks anything ike that game populous (where you were god and mvoed your little shamen men aroudn) it would be bollocks. i also think that the scale of the game is too big for 3d to make much difference. 1 tile isnt 1 hill, but a hill range

For the most part I don't care about graphics. In that sense, I'd play a 2D civ 4 pretty easily.

But a 3D civ allows a few new concepts:

- putting your city on a plateau (right now there's only hills or plains)
- the water level rising, leading to some select tiles getting flooded
- raising the land level artificially, like in some parts of europe and asia
- mountains of different heights can have different meanings
* cultural, even religious significance of really high peaks
* significance for movement (make it over some mountains but not others, until technology or resources permits it)

While it doesn't mean that civ will move away from being tile based or turn based... I think it would mean that slopes cost more movement points than flatlands. That's just the impression I get, though.

Just so that you know.. Pirates II uses a 3D Engine.

Oh by the way, a lot of people are responding with fears that a 3D world will slow your computer down.

I have to disagree. :D

In Rise of Nations (which uses 3D unit models only), I can have up to 1000 units on screen at once, and my framerate remains around the 20fps (which is reasonable). This might be because the unit is in 3D, whereas 2D units, with all sides animated, actually use up more memory than 3D units where the unit is made up of tiny polygons and a few textures.

Also, 3D units will mean you can scale them up and down easily. So if you wanted your units to be to scale with the terrain, then its going to be as hard as typing a few keys.

That is one sweet screenshot, Snoop.

Yeah, Imagine Civ being like that? That would certainly mature the Civilization franchise. Gotta do it or Civ could be lost in time..

3D - if done properly and fits within the series.

3D would be nice but it isn't essential so I would marginally prefer 3D as long as the game doesn't suffer because too much time was spent on graphics...

... From what I've heard from some modders, it'll probably be EASIER to do different units without the need to render an inherently 3D object into 2D. I don't know enough to say, but I would have a tendency to believe them.

I've also heard/read that the load on the main CPU is LESS with 3D, assuming you have a 3D card, which a lot of computers have these days.
...
Arathorn

Huh? 3D is much harder, in programming, hardware requirements and artistic rendering. Going 3D is going to make it much harder for mod makers. Frankly, I see no reason why a turn based, strategic wargame like Civ should even consider going 3D. What could it possibly add to play value? The ability to relocate the camera? Who cares?

Huh? 3D is much harder, in programming, hardware requirements and artistic rendering. Going 3D is going to make it much harder for mod makers. Frankly, I see no reason why a turn based, strategic wargame like Civ should even consider going 3D. What could it possibly add to play value? The ability to relocate the camera? Who cares?

Or they may buy a 3d engine, then it would be easier. Or maybe they'll use their Pirates engine, then it will be easier.

Immersion is key to civ. Civ I was alot of fun...but look at it's graphics!

They licensed the Gamebryo engine which is fairly easy to use and allows importing of 3D models and animations from the major packages (and they have been using it for Pirates so their programmers and artists are up on it).

Having done both 3D and 2D graphics for a living, 3D is easier once you have a math background (if you are a programmer) and good tools (if you are an artist).

Seeing game artists work nearly every day I can say that these days they generally do nearly all their artwork in 3D anyways and then render them down to 2D when they are doing a 2D game (like Civ3) or when doing UI elements.

Huh? 3D is much harder, in programming, hardware requirements and artistic rendering. Going 3D is going to make it much harder for mod makers. Frankly, I see no reason why a turn based, strategic wargame like Civ should even consider going 3D. What could it possibly add to play value? The ability to relocate the camera? Who cares?
Well, look at that Pirates screenshot. It's beautiful, it really is. And it probably isn't much if any more work than how the graphics for Civ 3 were done.

As Neomega said, giving you the full feeling of being within a different world is important. Having better graphics does do that. Civ should have the best graphics possible without detracting from gameplay.

And look at the screenshots for pirates at IGN or something.... you'll see. :)

Beautiful and full of potential.

I wont buy it if its not 3D, and good 3d enviorement like what I soon to see in Rome: Total War. :D Thats the only reason I am excited for civ4! :D

Its 2006???? I thought it was 2004??? I knew I was playing an epic Civ game at the moment but have I really been ingrossed in it for 2 years???????? I've missed so much, my babies first word....their first steps.... Well I would've done if I'd had any!!

* As a response to Neomega *

In my experience 3D games are almost always more difficult to manage then 2D games. One of the great advantages of the current 2D look is that I can see everything I want without difficulty, for example in 3D you might not be able to see half of your armies at first because of a hill or whatever. If they are able to make a managable and clear 3D interface, then let them go ahead. Else, I just have my doubts.

Its 2006???? I thought it was 2004??? I knew I was playing an epic Civ game at the moment but have I really been ingrossed in it for 2 years???????? I've missed so much, my babies first word....their first steps.... Well I would've done if I'd had any!!
I think he means that by the time Civ IV is released it will be 2006. Though I disagree, I think Christmas 2005 is most likely (about a year and a half left).

Many battles and maybe even wars had been won because one party could see the full of the enemy forces which were hinding behind a hill of something.

size of maps is a vital factor... it ought to be a PLAYABLE otpion on a modern pc to play a WORLDMAP or it isnt really a CIV so my suggestion is a switch between tactical and strategic view...

Develpoment is improvement not commercialism.. 3d graphics is inherently invented to a first shooter perspective although it can be adapted....

think being the genreal placing ur regiemnts in a walley.. taking advanteges of terrain bonuses. rivers (patriotaic or not ) citizens and so on there are many factors to warfare. there are many factors to development. if civ 4 isnt able to make this factors into reality , they have not made a new game.. in fact they have followed a trend... ruling a nation or a civ or whatever u ppl feel is far more than moving stupid spearman around..
ill rather wait for the ultimate strategy game than see another mass produced crap being sold off in the shelves

I perfer a 2D with a 3D isometric view much like Civ2 and Civ3

a switch of 2d and 3d is most advategous as i staed in earlier posts...
3d is only advantegous in tactical battle.. like rome total power.... what civ has is all that rome TP doesnt have.. on a stragetic factor.. however if u look at RTP asa scenario in CIV you have asomewhta deal... make it better.. bigger... and open the doors to the fans.. to improve :eek:

Wow, talk about reviving an old thread. ;)

Isn't 3D chiseled in stone the past year anyway? An interesting "expansion" would be to allow those who don't like 3D to shell out a few more bucks to replace the rendering with 2D. If the program is designed with modularity in mind, it could be a relatively easy switch -- but they'd have to charge enough to offset development costs.

I've seen far too many games go 3D with less than impressive results. The only way they can pull this off is to view the terrain from a fixed camera view (as 3D) and set the units to work like they do in Civ3. Considering the size of the units and (last I heard they wanted to use...) the multi-units, the result will look almost anime-like, kind of like Warcraft3 to war2.

The only other option is to keep all the units simple. The same detail as Civ3 units, only in true 3D format. Custom units could exceed that (and likely will, probably over detailed again), but the basic game units should be generalized due to their size.

i kinda liked what was said now last.. still the switiching btween 2d and 3d window would proove a moreadvantoug solusios as to tactical and strategic moves... more realistic more potent.. and more work

I reckon CIV4 will be like Pirates II, in terms of graphics.

And that makes me drool!

:D

I haven't played Pirates, but considering the size of the units (especially considering that multi-units are now the norm, thus each unit is smaller yet) - how much detail can you possibly get into them? The sad part is 'lots' - meaning they could end up over-done like warcraft3's were. Hopefully the 3D remains primarily for the landscape, thus gameplay, and not for the units themselves. Screenshots seem to confirm this initially, though as I said - doesn't look much different from Civ3 units.

After having been a huge Orion fan, and fearing a fall during their progression - which ended up happening, I'm scared of a repeat with civ4.

yeah Orion went to much in one direction. toward strategy, and forgot that people have to sit and watch it for weeks.. its important to balance the gameplay. however i havent played pirates...the name scares me .. and ive seen screenshots of warcraft and it scares me too..im not going to spend weeks staring at troops looking awfully kool if they have no real strategy behind them.. except monster hunting their enemies.. .. then i could just as well stick to civ 3 conquest giving the fact of the higher cpus and memory of newer machines i guess it will load world maps at reasoable pace..

IT probably will be similar to empire earth II but not real time

The question is premature and too late all at once. It is premature because people haven't even seen enough of the game to make a good judgement of how it will work and it is too late because we all know it will use a 3-D engine.

You'll have people voting for 2-D option for the wrong reasons, mainly 1) they know their machine is creaking and doesn't want CIV to be the game to make them upgrade 2) attachments to the isometric view making people vote conservatively just because...

On the 3-D front, there may 1) inflated expectations of really good 3-D graphics which will probably not be met 2) the wrong ideas about how 3-D will be used leading to inflated expectations on implementation.

If push comes to shove, having the problems I just stated in mind, I'd go with 3-D, mainly because geometry is much more flexible form of art asset than the .flc and bitmap files of earlier Civ games. Flexibility allows for more fine tuning, and generally more content in the art department.

I'd prefer if they used researches to improve performances on big maps. Civ3 is already too demanding on modern computers.. I want to play huge maps until the modern age!

If 3D will make the game even slower, I'll probably never get into civIV. So, 2D for me thanks.

3D! Technologies should progress. For me adds more reality. But would not mind 2D.

I havn't read through all the posts so apologies if this has already been mentioned :blush:

Personally I prefered the 2D Civ1 view, and from what I saw on the E3 video you can view CIV4 in true 3D and in a 2D birds eye view as well... :)

.... OTOH it will be the AI and complex background processing of the AI decisions etc which will hit your machine's performance not the graphics!

The world is in 3D, I'm used to it, I've no problem of adaptation toward it, I even feel more comfortable with it.
I also don't see why a 2D game would be better.

So 3D all the way.

2d isometric view is what im used to.. maybe a 3d view like SMAC that you could change the perspective on. I'll probably go for 3D in the end... and have a nostalgic play of Civ3 now and again.

In a staight comparison there is no contest. 3D is better than 2D - the animations and the way the screen comes alive is great. Spinning the screen is cool. Don't you remember battles in Civ3 where you can't see the hit points coming off the enemy unit due to obstructions? Well no more in C4. Also, everyone can find their own perfect viewing angle: overhead, at an angle, close in, far out etc.

If you computer can't handle it then buy a new one - You deserve it!

(This message brought to you by the HP/eMachines/Sony/Dell marketing consortioum.)

3D http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads10/danceRoman.gif

As has been mentioned numerous times before, the system requirements for Civ4 are tame. Something like an ATI Radeon 9600 Pro will probably do the job just fine (as even DOOM3 is playable on that card albeit without shadows) and they cost peanuts second hand - I sold mine a few months ago for £40.

Yes, there are some exceedingly ugly 3D games, but c'mon, we've all seen the screenshots and videos by now, and Civ4 is obviously not one of those games. I cannot believe this poll is as close as it is. 3D >> 2D, end of. :p

Yes, there are some exceedingly ugly 3D games, but c'mon, we've all seen the screenshots and videos by now, and Civ4 is obviously not one of those games. I cannot believe this poll is as close as it is. 3D >> 2D, end of. :p
This poll was started last year :). Far more people are probably in favour of 3D now. I think it's time for another poll.

You gotta love the dancing legion http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads10/danceRoman.gif

3D, it looks so much better.

I haven't played Pirates, but considering the size of the units (especially considering that multi-units are now the norm, thus each unit is smaller yet) - how much detail can you possibly get into them? The sad part is 'lots' - meaning they could end up over-done like warcraft3's were.

Warcraft 3's were great! Playing DoTA custom scenario with all the heroes is so much fun simply for looking at the heroes all battling it out. Great look and animations... if CivIV units are to look anything like that then i'd be thrilled.