I've seen many threads where people complain about the AI in civ3, so I'm posting a poll to see what everyone thinks.

While I would rather an improved AI, a 3D engine is practically a given these days (this isn't as expensive as you'd think since they developed their 3D engine for Pirates! already - in fact, it makes the artwork cheaper to produce).

There is also the reality of the publishing situation. A AAA publisher in 2005 is going to very unlikely to publish a 2D game at all.

Personally, I think the units in civ3 are well-rendered enough, but the AI is friggin retarded sometimes. But I hear tell they are rebuilding civ4 from the ground up so maybe we'll get both

I voted 3D engine! Guess why? :lol: Because they are going to implement it anyway.

And they are going to ruin the AI again anyway, so what's the point? :(

-kirby

This isn't a fair poll.

Maybe I can open a poll to ask "what do you want, the world or $200?" I guess I'd pick the $200, because I know that could be real.

There sure are a lot of pessimistic expectations for a game that is not coming out for quite a while yet...... :p

Well, unfortunately, I believe more man hours will go into unit shadows than AI because of the perception that eye candy might sell millions.

Thread moved to Civ4 Ideas & Suggestions.

Oh I hate 3D games. They not only increase system requirement but also actually make the games much much more ugly.
Beautiful 2D graphic is what I want. And don't let me down on the AI, the civ3 AI is stupid, it can't even handle unit and city trading, please, change that!

I hope to see both. They will definately make the game 3D since that's a given in modern games. I don't see this as hurting the game in anyway at all, infact it can add a lot to gameplay with new and interesting terrain effects.

I really really hope to see them improve the AI. This is a strategy single player game for most players, which means a good AI is needed. I don't like playing when the AI must cheat to keep up. I would like to see the AI use human type tactics - ie, irrigate, mine, road intelligently, place cities strategically, negotiate deals, explore, etc etc. It is really difficult to do this but if they do it could be the best game ever made.. in the end the game's graphics will be outdated within 18 months but the gameplay can live on forever - ie, civ1/2/3, which means the AI is really important..

I voted for a better AI. I don't agree with the viewpoint that making a good AI is unrealistic.

The game has to have graphics, right? They can't be the same as in Civ3, right? Well, then they are going to have to give it new graphics. It's 2004, so they're going to be in 3D. As far as I know, it's not any more difficult to render a game in 3D than in 2D. It's probably easier.

So what is everyone's problem with 3D? They don't look any worse! Have you guys seen the Pirates 2 screenshots? They are great! And as far as system specs go, hey, that's the industry. I imagine that Civ4 will have substantially less demands than most games.

I just wish people would come to grips with the damn 3D graphics.

That said, I would rather it have top-notch AI than top-notch graphics.

People's probelm with 3D graphics is that Civ3 worked fine with good (i.e. pseudo-3D) 2D graphics, the fact that they will be 3D is not obvious, Civ3 gameplay has no need, and is not enhanced in any way other than aesthetics (which I admit is important, but Civ3 looks pretty good as it is). If there was no downside to 3D graphics then obviosly we wouldn't object, but there is - any game with rendered 3D graphics is going to require more processor power and bigger graphcis cards, and when its really unnecessary for Civ, then this just seems like a waste, I like the fact that Civ3 can generally play pretty fast on most machines, I don't need better graphics, nor do most Civ players, so why should we give endure longer loading times, the need for better graphics cards and greater processor usage to get them?

Improved graphics are fine, excellent even, but I would focus them on a more aesthetic interface generally, not a 3D rendering game engine. But above all I would like to see a more intelligent, more devious, more REASONABLE (a not often stated weakening effect of more intelligent computers) and more strategic AI.

There is a good reason for 3D. Atari won't release a 2D game in 2005 (or later) as a AAA title. If Atari doesn't publish it, Firaxis can't work on it (last I heard Atari owns the IP rights to the entire Civ line).

Here is sample of what Pirates! map will look like.

This 3D thing is bugging me. In my book, civ is a 2d game because it is played on a 2d grid. If we are talking bout graphics then I'd say civ3 is 3d. But apparently the game designers don't think civ3 is 3d, otherwise there would be nothing special about civ4 being 3d. So what the heck civ4 going to look like...camera angles and such? I don't want to look at my stupid warriors from multipule angles.

I doubt Civ3 is the model of graphic efficiency. It can get pretty slow on big maps.

This 3D thing is bugging me. In my book, civ is a 2d game because it is played on a 2d grid. If we are talking bout graphics then I'd say civ3 is 3d. But apparently the game designers don't think civ3 is 3d, otherwise there would be nothing special about civ4 being 3d. So what the heck civ4 going to look like...camera angles and such? I don't want to look at my stupid warriors from multipule angles.

Civ3 is not 3D. All the artwork is done with 2D tiles laid out in a grid. Any illusion of 3D is just that, an illusion. (I should know, I've fiddled with every one of those tiles at some point or other).

What will Civ4 look like in 3D? Look at the picture of the Pirates! map that I included a few posts up. Civ4 will use the same graphics engine for rendering as that uses (Gamebryo). If they use the same artists once Pirates! ships, likely there will be a similar graphics style.

Actually, there should be no big deal about Civ going 3D, nearly every other game in every other genre has already gone there.

I don't think these two are diametrically opposed. In fact, I think we can take these two for granted.

Things that are diametrically opposed would be two different things that make the game more complex... if they both make you spend 15 more seconds per turn on average, then there's no way they'll implement both. Implementing one will make the game take 2 hours longer... implementing both will make the game take 4 hours longer.

These tough choices are very gameplay focused, I think. Right now, they're probably still working on the actual graphical engine, and creating some kind of scripting API.

They purchased the 3D engine. They are using the Gamebryo engine for rendering. (This does not mean that they don't have any programmers dedicated to doing the 3D rendering, Gamebryo isn't that good- it's just an engine).

I voted other, because I want both. I think the 3D picture posted below looks good.

Yeah, I'm familiar with Gamebryo. They used it for Freedom Force. I've actually done a lot of research on 3D engines at the company where I work. In the end, we decided to adapt OGRE for our purposes. I digress, though.

Glad you could confirm the 3D Engine is under way. It's not as contraversial or limiting an investment as people think, and still allows them to make bigger gameplay decisions.

I'm only concered about how it will affect custom-designed units.

For those who made their custom units in standard 3d packages it will be even easier as they won't have to render it to a flc and clean it up. Those who used 2d packages will have something to learn. FWIW, both Firaxis and BreakAway made their units in 3D then rendered them to 2D frames of animation. This would have let them and us skip a step.

that graphic posted looks pretty good to me, the clouds are a nice touch. maybe "pirates" will influence them in their reworking of the naval situation, where the naval scene is just as important as land.

Well, unfortunately, I believe more man hours will go into unit shadows than AI because of the perception that eye candy might sell millions.
Well, considering most work done on each of these is done by different people, I really don't think this is a fair criticism. ;) 3D, when done properly, can save time to do the same exact things compared to how things were done in the past with 2D. Plus, as long as you have good artists, the graphics look a lot better to boot (in addition to other things like rotation, zooming, etc.).

Originally I was skeptical about CIV being in 3D, but I have confidence in Firaxis to do 3D right and in a way that does justice to a great game series.

Trip birings up a good point, a 3D graphics specialist is not going to be coding AI or vice versa.

BTW, the Gamebryo engine already includes code for shadows that Firaxis could use unchanged if they wanted to. They already paid for it, they may as well use it.

Too many a game have I bought and then thought "Yep, they pushed the new graphical element as the major selling point and the actual gameplay ends up lacking." I hope when previews of civ4 come out the reaction is "the new featues sound great" and not "the 3d looks great".

Realistically, I think both could and should happen. AI should be smarter, not just cheat more on higher difficulty. A 3D engine would be awesome especially if battles could be incorporated in a 3D, quasi real-time fashion. Can you imagine a "unit" of hoplite soldier encountering another say Archer "unit" The cameras can fly (zoom) in when battle begins and as the perspective gets 100x closer the single unit becomes a division of 100 soldiers. The fighting is rendered in 3D with archers loosing arrows, the hoplites weilding shields and polearms, and blood flowing everywhere! Combat system can be improved to give more strategic maneuvering during combat, but is not a neccessity - the old system can be used, just rendered in a 3D combat sequence.

The 3D map might add a lot to the gameplay, I agree with that.
But it will also make the game much more demanding. Imagine running the game on a 3D huge map.
No matter how many new features they add in, w/o a good AI it will still be a piece of ****.

Agreed with Dida. One of the fundamental rules of programming and game design is don't give a game something just for the hell of it. Though, Masterofdragons and Warpstorm, you may love the idea of beutifully rendered graphics, and every battle zooming in to see the units fight each other in a combat sequence, the vast majority of the Civ community doesn't. Civ is a purely driven gameplay game...the graphics add an aesthetic touch, but there is no need for Civ to go 3D, despite what Warpstorm says, the vast majority of the TBS Empire-management games are not 3D, only illusion-3D, like Civ.

Obviously better graphics are a great thing, but a whole 3D engine is going to eat through processor power and majorly beef up the system requirements and lag game speed and for what? Civ games have no need of a 3D engine...the pirates picture may look nice and give you a thrill thinking of Civ like that, but for me personally, and most of the Civ community, we don't want Civ to look like that. I do disagree totally with the view that a game cannot have improved graphics AND improved gameplay, but I see no reason to give Civ a 3D engine when it is patently a 2D strategy game, when all its going to do is slow down gameplay and the actual running speed of the game itself. Better graphics is great, a more stylistic interface is great, but I really feel a 3D engine is a waste of time and energy when the vast majority of people have no wish to see cutscenes of bombers blowing up cities, or little battles every single time two units fight, or the ability to rotate round your warriors etc. Everything in the Civ3 map is representative, the whole graphics syetm is representative. A 3D engine will not be better for the game.

It's kind of a moot argument as Firaxis has said (publicly at the Game Developer's Conference, quite a few months ago, now) that they are going to make Civ4 a 3D game. It would have to be well underway by now (especially if they pillaged code from Pirates! to make their new engine).

I do think that 3D will add a lot of good gameplay in of itself -- you can actually model flatness of land, and various levels of elevation... you can literally have entire sections of a continent surrounded and protected by mountains, like India, instead of a few mountain tiles. You could potentially raise and lower land given the time and resources, and even pull land out of the water in a logical way.

Still, the only thing that would prevent them from doing actual gameplay features wouldn't be the programming effort ... the 3D programmers are usually different from the gameplay programmers, or at least the AI programmers.

It would all be a question of whether they really believed it was enough. If they looked at the spec and said "yeah! look at what they're getting! They're getting 2 new gameplay features, and a HUUUUUGE 3D overhaul. I think that's enough."

I think you would get a better insight with a 4th option in the pole:
"I want better A1 and a 3D engine."

And by Nov 2005 I will have a new computer, that can handle the CIV4 easily.

Then everyone would vote for the 4th option.

Better AI, even on low levels or high levels you can walk over them.You can do what I do
Tear them up.War can be fun.

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: Nukes are good if there not used against you :nuke: :mischief:

I understand the arguments for good looking 3D maps, but there is something vintage and good looking about the 2D graphics that Civ 3 had. They were attractive and ran decently fast on my computer.

I understand the engine is being implemented, I just would have preferred the AI bumped up many many notches.

better 3d engine :P

The poll is almost pointless since it already stated that civ would be in 3D. However, if it was my choice to have one or the other, I would rather have the better AI. But I think that we will have both. Maybe not the best AI available, but one that is better than Civ3

I think the poll is pretty clear, which would *you* rather have. Firaxis has already decided it wants 3D, and there is zero indication that is also wants to substainsially improve the AI. Based off this poll it seems we the consumers care FAR more about the AI. Yet I don't ever see Firaxis going all "civ4 will have a great AI!" as much as they have already said "civ4 will have 3D graphics!".

No, eg577, what this poll says is that 68 out of 83 of the most hard-core Civ Fanatics would rather have AI than graphics. I'd be very leary about extending the findings of this poll to the Civ buying consumers as a whole. If you are reading this at all you are not representative of the million or so buyers of Civ3. Most of them are not fanatics. Most of them have trouble beating Warlord. I've got quite a few friends who are casual Civ players who have never beaten Regent.

FWIW, I am one of those 68.

Agreed with WS, as we always seem to do... Wonder why that is. ;) :p

The average PC (TM) is good enough to run pretty much any 3D game out there. And by the time CIV is released, the average PC (TM) will have gotten even better. I really don't think we're going to be talking DOOM III material here after all - the 3D isn't the focus of the game, after all.

And eg577, I think it's unfair to assume that Firaxis doesn't think that a better AI is important. Listing "an improved AI over Civ 3!" as an important new feature for the future of the series would be both redundant with the obvious as well as, well... unspactacular. They're obviously not going to regress any, and since computers are getting better, I think it's safe to assume that it will be better.

Need I repeat the story about how Civ 3's programming team left after a year of work was done and Firaxis had to hire a whole new cadre to take over and save the project. ;) It's a miracle the thing even loaded, let alone played well. With CIV being made from scratch with a complete team from start to finish (we hope ;)), I have no doubts that the AI, as well as everything else, will be an improvement over Civ 3.

You guys worry too much. If Sid is involved, not only will the graphics be improved and in 3D, but the AI will most certainly change significantly. Have we been disappointed from CIV I to II to III to Conquests? (ok, there was PTW, but that was production fault, not design) But, I can guarantee with certainty that AI will be better and also much different from what we currently see. Why, you say? Why bother with Civ 4 if things aren't going to change - just release another expansion pack. No, I am optimistic, this new Civ will blow our freakin MINDS!!! :eek:

The average PC (TM) is good enough to run pretty much any 3D game out there. And by the time CIV is released, the average PC (TM) will have gotten even better. I really don't think we're going to be talking DOOM III material here after all - the 3D isn't the focus of the game, after all.

That would be true of the average PC made in the last 18 months. Many people own the same PC for three or more years. My current PC is four years old and will likely not be replaced for a year or two. In my opinion too good of a graphics engine will alienate many people who don't replace their computer every two years.

On graphics, sometimes slightly aged graphics are a good thing. Look at the Total War series. When each game came out, the engine worked very well for what it did, but computer graphics looked better at the time. Why the worse graphics? The combat engine required that many system resources because it truly simulated man to man combat. Even Rome: Total War, which has much nicer graphics then MTW, is slightly behind the curve. I won't care though, because I know the programmers and publishers care more about gameplay then graphics.

What was the point of the diatribe? I was just presenting the viewpoint that you may alienate long-time Civers who feel the series has sold out.

They are using the Gamebryo engine. If you can run Freedom Force on your computer, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to run Civ4 when it comes out.

I don't think the 3D load will affect performance that much for anyone who has even a marginal 3D graphics card. The idea is that Civ 3 put all the graphics load on your processor, whereas Civ 4 will put the graphics load where it belongs, on the graphics processor. Kind of how Longhorn will make for a more efficient version of Windows.

They are using the Gamebryo engine. If you can run Freedom Force on your computer, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to run Civ4 when it comes out.

Well, I do own Free Force and play it some, so I should be cool. Thank you warpstorm.

Yes, and Longhorns make good steaks too :goodjob:

Simple answer: Better AI
But 3D graphics are cool... :D

3D generally isn't better looking than 2D. You always end up with polygons and putting settings to LOW because you feel that 1000times better graphics don't worth the 1second lag you get here and then.

In terms of fun and gameplay, lag will always be a pain, and 3D always brings lag.
Just look at Warcraft3, it is pretty horrible, even though at first look you would think it is great.

AI all the way, I want to have to defend a solid, full-on amphibious landing at least ONCE. I, like many others, don't particularly want to see my Armies from every angle, especially if being able to do so means that I have to wait through lag so it can load parts that I will rarely see. I also find fully customisable cameras incredibly annoying.

I would be happy enough if Civ4 was just Civ3 with some new features and a good AI but the best I can hope for now is that they make a good job of whatever 3D graphics they do implement, so as to not ruin what Civilization has always been about...the gameplay.

AI all the way, I want to have to defend a solid, full-on amphibious landing at least ONCE. I, like many others, don't particularly want to see my Armies from every angle, especially if being able to do so means that I have to wait through lag so it can load parts that I will rarely see. I also find fully customisable cameras incredibly annoying.

I would be happy enough if Civ4 was just Civ3 with some new features and a good AI but the best I can hope for now is that they make a good job of whatever 3D graphics they do implement, so as to not ruin what Civilization has always been about...the gameplay.

I agree with you but have one question...

regarding your signature - what is the other rule?

I would be happy enough if Civ4 was just Civ3 with some new features

Soren has said that Civ4 will be a totally new game that is based on the Civ series. It will not be Civ3+. Those who are wanting that may be disappointed.

Soren has said that Civ4 will be a totally new game that is based on the Civ series. It will not be Civ3+. Those who are wanting that may be disappointed.

Hmm, then again in hindsight I thought similiarly about Civ2 and yet was pleasently surprised with Civ3. I just HOPE they don't sacrifice gameplay for graphics.

I agree with you but have one question...
regarding your signature - what is the other rule?

...You're joking right?

I just HOPE they don't sacrifice gameplay for graphics.

Don't we all? Don't we all?

I think that if they forget about the gameplay that will be the end of the series. (But I'm not against better graphics).

Hmm, then again in hindsight I thought similiarly about Civ2 and yet was pleasently surprised with Civ3. I just HOPE they don't sacrifice gameplay for graphics.



...You're joking right?

I think the joke is on sealman, BlueNine.

As far as the graphic goes, I don't even care if civ4 looks exactly the same as civ3, which is good looking as it is. But I do expect a lot of new features, and better AI and new rules.

I am saddened by the 3d. I actually probably will not buy civ 4. I have ever civ game from civ 1 up (less conquests which the g/f is buying for my on my birthday.) But i will not buy civ 4 simply because I get annoyed as is with the 10-15 minute turn intervals I have now on large maps. I can only imagine what it will be like if made 3d. I just got htis computer, i edit film on this computer, i know i can handle 3d, but i'd rather not.
I want more AI. I wantto be surprised by the computer sometime. I want a computer Ai that can learn my tactic and adjust to them. one that can remember what i did the last turn and then react to it.
And also, i wasn't impressed nor did i like the pirates screenshot.

reading this thread i am not surprised that many are reluctant to change. human nature. (which is probably why empires fall...) Personally i would not care if they reworked the whole thing- progress will not be swayed by a couple hundred stick in the muds.

I am saddened by the 3d. I actually probably will not buy civ 4. I have ever civ game from civ 1 up (less conquests which the g/f is buying for my on my birthday.) But i will not buy civ 4 simply because I get annoyed as is with the 10-15 minute turn intervals I have now on large maps. I can only imagine what it will be like if made 3d. I just got htis computer, i edit film on this computer, i know i can handle 3d, but i'd rather not.
I want more AI. I wantto be surprised by the computer sometime. I want a computer Ai that can learn my tactic and adjust to them. one that can remember what i did the last turn and then react to it.
And also, i wasn't impressed nor did i like the pirates screenshot.
So you think automatically that just because Firaxis goes 3D means that they care less about the AI or gameplay?

I don't think that's a fair assumption, especially with the game a year and a half away and hardly a peep even been revealed about it.

Read the reviews, play the demo, borrow the game from a friend, whatever. If you don't like it then, then fair enough. But I don't think it's proper to pass a final judgement on a product which no one has even used yet. :p

proper, probably not, but hey, it's my judgement to pass. This particular civ game has turned me off simply because it's got a 3 d engine. And that's just me and my judgement of what i will and will not buy.

Well, I wouldn't plan on buying many games in the future then. ;)

Lol im the type who only needs 1 or two. eventually i'll ahve to give in, but for now i can hold out.

Well, enjoy what you got, the rest of us will be playing CIV with no regrets. ;)

I think a fear many players, mostly myself, have is this. Whenever a game company says they are trying to "attract a larger audience" and "great improved graphics", it often leads to mainstream crap.

The Civ3 AI gets a lot of things right. The point about it that I have always admired the most is that each AI civ plays indepedently. The AI doesn't team up on the player the way it always would in Civ1 and Civ2. That gave Civ3 a better feel (for me) than its predecessors.

I'm sure the Civ4 AI will improve over the Civ3 AI. The real question is by how much? Will it be a little better or a lot better? I suppose it's possible that it could be worse, but I have seen no reason to expect that.


I went and tried Galactic Civilizations last fall, when I heard a lot of hype about its AI. I really hoped I'd find a gem. Well I kind of did in terms of the game (I really liked it) but the AI was not as good as Civ3's, the hype notwithstanding. When I got to where I had the GalCiv AI completely solved, the game ran out of legs for me and I went back to MOO1 for something to be playing while we all sit and wait to see how Civ4 will turn out. :cooool:


- Sirian