Sub-Par graphics, congrats firaxis.

Personally I find the graphics very nice.

Especially compared to those cartoonish Civ4 graphics. Luckily coldfever provided us with bluemarble.

Most important is that the graphics are clear, do not distract us from the essence of the game and do NOT slow the game engine down. I do not want to buy another supercomputer just to play a strategy game.
 
I have to say that I think Civ graphics have been declining steadily since Civilization II.

Civ II has clear, crisp graphics that are instantly recognizable.

Civ III muddies them by adding noise, like shadows and animation.

Civ IV adds pointless 3d graphics, so that you need an advanced computer to show them. And, they change the model frequently: different directions, animations, damage... It's near impossible to recognize a unit without being zoomed in fully. Luckily they avoid many of the usual 3d traps, terrain obscuring important information and insufficient ability to zoom out. (They do add a layer of clouds when zoomed out though. I guess they didn't want the map to be too useful.)

If that trend continues, Civ VI units will be unrecognizable unless zoomed in enough to count the nose hairs, but that's okay since it will be impossible to zoom out anyway and there will be thick fog everywhere.

I know we all value gameplay over graphics, but this is taking it to a pretentious extreme, as if somehow you're better than other gamers because you don't need silly graphical enhancements.

I personally found that with Civ II I had a hard time discerning the bonus resources. Silk, for example, looks like some seafood at a fancy restaurant. Civ III was the best at clear information. Civ VI tiles are not too obvious, but that's why you have a "show resources" / "show yields" feature. :)

You still have to give some thought to graphics, because not only does it help grow the Civ community, but it also makes it easier on the eyes than harsh polygons and enhances the gameplay. It's so much easier to imagine an epic LOTR battle with your archers in Civ IV than the dirt-throwing explosion sprite thingies of Civ II.
 
I think it's unfair to say he's being pretentious because he enjoys one art style over another. I've only played the first and fourth civ and while I preferred the graphics of the fourth I still enjoy the graphics of the first.
I think the graphics for Civilization V look lovely, I just hope my computer is up for it. :)
 
That's not how code works. You create everything at runtime, you don't just try and take tiles from some list and try to stick it in there.

Have you looked at how the graphics are handled for the terrain in Civ4? Features are the quickest/easiest one to look at to see that this is PRECISELY how they had done them here. While they MIGHT take another approach in Civ5, if they have the same basic team working on the terrain, it isn't likely.
 
I know we all value gameplay over graphics, but this is taking it to a pretentious extreme, as if somehow you're better than other gamers because you don't need silly graphical enhancements.

It's not gameplay versus graphics; each civ has so far included enough gameplay enhancements to make the previous version all but unplayable despite better graphics.

Its information versus pretty. Pretty graphics are ok in a first person shooter, they are even nice in an action role-playing game.

In a strategy game the primary purpose of graphics is to convey available information to the player. Since Civilization IV is worse at conveying information than Civilization II, Civilization II has superior graphics.

The UI is better, the gameplay is better, the AI is better, the graphics are worse.

To be fair, they're not much worse.

I personally found that with Civ II I had a hard time discerning the bonus resources. Silk, for example, looks like some seafood at a fancy restaurant. Civ III was the best at clear information. Civ VI tiles are not too obvious, but that's why you have a "show resources" / "show yields" feature. :)

Overlays are great, but ultimately hide information. They "overlay" on the maps. They are also part of the UI, not the graphics.

You still have to give some thought to graphics, because not only does it help grow the Civ community, but it also makes it easier on the eyes than harsh polygons and enhances the gameplay. It's so much easier to imagine an epic LOTR battle with your archers in Civ IV than the dirt-throwing explosion sprite thingies of Civ II.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't work on the graphics, or even that the graphics have hurt the franchise. Just that each iteration of Civilization since II has moved further from my view of good graphics.
 
odalrick seriously? Thats your reasoning. "I can't understand it as well so its worse." Seriously? wow...just wow, I am almost dumbfounded by this. I'm tempted to make a personal attack on your IQ here, but I think I will just stick with being dumbfounded...
 
To be honest, I was kinda disappointed with the graphics when I first saw the screenshots. It may be better than Civ IV, but the landscape and the units make the game look like a regular game made in 2005. BUT. Then I thought to myself: look how many individuals there are in the units (http://www.civilization5.com/img/screenshots/screenshot_01.jpg). I didn't count them, but there's got to be at least a hundred. Naturally, if you want to show a hundred actors in one scene they can't have the detail you'd see actors in a FPS to have. (That doesn't change the fact that they still look dated though.)
 
Can someone explain to me why we're discussing terrain rounding when it's pretty obvious that Civ5 already has this? For example, take this screenshot:

http://www.civfanatics.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=2775&c=36

Hexagons? Where? The river could be better but the rest looks good.

The honeycomb is only obvious in some of the other screens because the grid display is turned on.

those lakes look stupid and unatural. Firaxis needs to disign a better random generator for they're terrian placements.

I also hate how when your zoomed in, everything looks like its floating. hopefully this will be fixed in final version.
 
you guys don't get it. Firaxis is always years behind the graphic evolution. Its cool. I'll still play they're games no matter what. But you guys just give them a free pass everytime. Civ 4 looks decent when the first screenshots came in. Then after a year, your lke...what is this crap? the land tiles look like doo doo. It will be the same thing with civ 5. Just wait a year until after the game i realeased. all the other games will be light years ahead of it.

Its just annoying as hell going back and forth between different video games. one minute your playing a gorgeous HD game, then the next minute your playing a civ game which looks like cardboard cutout put together south park style.
 
lern2civ?

Seriously people get a life, we need this thread closed
 
In a strategy game the primary purpose of graphics is to convey available information to the player. Since Civilization IV is worse at conveying information than Civilization II, Civilization II has superior graphics.
I seriously don't understand your complaint:



Plains, grassland, desert, flood plains, forests, mountains all easily identifiable.

Granted, there aren't many units here, but they are mostly differentiated enough, even at this level of zoom.

Sure, the resource overlay is on, but resources were never that hard to tall apart. Maybe some of the metals (gold, silver, iron, aluminium) looked similar and incense and wine always seemed to look the same to me, but that's fixed with an easy mouse-over.

Perhaps hills were sometimes hard to identify, especially under a forest or a city.

I can't see how anyone could complain that it fails to convey the necessary information.

My only complaint about the Civ 5 terrain graphics are that they seem a little drab - more like Civ 3. I actually much prefer the brighter colours in Civ 4. They also lack the same character Civ 4 had, but it's early on and there's no much going on in them.

Just that each iteration of Civilization since II has moved further from my view of good graphics.
Ahh, and here we have the crux of the issue, don't we?
 
Why do so many people complain about the vanilla version which we all know will be rushed to make money and then heavily corrected/redone in two, maybe three expansions?
What matters is how moddable it is, e.g. whether there's a maximum amount of terrain types, units, technological advances, resources, etc.
 
The discussion on how money is allocated during the development of a game is interesting. I have worked on many different releases of software for different companies and I can say that each company has it's own unique way of allocating money for development.

On one extreme I have seen where the money gets allocated to a team and the development team itself consisting of designers, programmers, and testers decided as the project proceeds what the money gets spent on. Bigger companies mightdo this because they don't need to "hire" 1 or more graphics artists/1 or more programmers ahead of time because they are already on staff splitting time between multiple projects. So it just comes down to getting their time allocated. This tends to be a bit chaotic but a creative, talented team, can produced some of the most incredible products due to the freedom allowed. This approach also tends to go over budget. They might even be allowed to go over budget.

On the other extreme is where everything is decided and allocated up front. People are hired up front and let go when the money runs out. No changes are possible because the budgets are fixed.

Edit: Nice post, never made my point! The point is that unless somebody on this forum understands Firaxis better, you cannot say that spending more time on graphics will or will not take time away from other areas - including AI.
Most companies fall in between these extremes somewhere.

Except for in the public sector, budgets are not fixed. It is recognized that release dates push and more funds may need to be allocated. In fact, some companies plan on it and budget for being overbudget... ;)
 
odalrick seriously? Thats your reasoning. "I can't understand it as well so its worse." Seriously? wow...just wow, I am almost dumbfounded by this. I'm tempted to make a personal attack on your IQ here, but I think I will just stick with being dumbfounded...

Yes, that's the short version.

What, have you never had to learn anything? You don't think there is a difference between being handed the Encyclopedia Britannica and told to "learn math" and attending a class, having a well thought out textbook and a teacher?

Strategy games are no different, though the cycle is shorter. At the beginning of the turn you have to learn what the enemy has done, what new things you have discovered and probably whatever you've forgotten you did in the past.

Graphics that make this task easier is better than graphics that make it harder.

I seriously don't understand your complaint:

Spoiler :


Granted, there aren't many units here, but they are mostly differentiated enough, even at this level of zoom.

The blue unit I think is a melee unit of some sort. Something is hidden under the ivory icon: Worker? Archer? I can see two workers and a chariot, though I'm not sure I'd call it clearly. At first glance I only saw the chariot.

Also, I noticed that single unit graphics is on. What; doesn't more polygons automatically mean better any more?

Sure, the resource overlay is on, but resources were never that hard to tall apart. Maybe some of the metals (gold, silver, iron, aluminium) looked similar and incense and wine always seemed to look the same to me, but that's fixed with an easy mouse-over.

Without the resource overlay I wouldn't have noticed the corn next to Thebes, and the mine covers the gold pretty well. Mouse-over would not help as there is nothing to tell that there is anything extra there. Also, mouse-over is not in any way graphics.

Perhaps hills were sometimes hard to identify, especially under a forest or a city.

And this is the best example of 3d-graphics in a strategy game there is, at least that I know of. Compared to Battle for Wesnoth it's lousy.

Civilization IV doesn't fail, it's just not as good as it's predecessors. All Civ games have great graphics by the standards of strategy games.


Ahh, and here we have the crux of the issue, don't we?

Oh, I see. Unlike everyone else on this forum who uses completely objective definitions of "better graphics", I made the mistake of expressing my own subjective opinion.

I forgot the section of Principia Mathematica that deals exclusively with establishing metrics for computer graphics.

Why do so many people complain about the vanilla version

Can't speak for anyone else, but for me it's mostly boredom. ;)
 
you guys don't get it. Firaxis is always years behind the graphic evolution. Its cool. I'll still play they're games no matter what. But you guys just give them a free pass everytime. Civ 4 looks decent when the first screenshots came in. Then after a year, your lke...what is this crap? the land tiles look like doo doo. It will be the same thing with civ 5. Just wait a year until after the game i realeased. all the other games will be light years ahead of it.

Its just annoying as hell going back and forth between different video games. one minute your playing a gorgeous HD game, then the next minute your playing a civ game which looks like cardboard cutout put together south park style.

Thank gawd the Civ 5 graphics aren't as ugly as the spelling and punctuation in the quoted post above. After reading some of the other posters well written posts I thought to myself, what is this crap? This post looks like doo doo :lol:

I think the screen shots look stunning and they will just get better and better. I suppose everyone has different tastes but you seem to have impossibly high standards it seems.
 
that blue unit in Andrew_Jay's screenshot is a sumerian scout, right?
EDIT: Thormodr, I agree with you totally, except
Thank gawd that the Civ 5 graphics aren't as ugly as the spelling and punctuation in the quoted post above. :)
God being written as gawd was put in for irony, right?
 
that blue unit in Andrew_Jay's screenshot is a sumerian scout, right?
EDIT: Thormodr, I agree with you totally, except

God being written as gawd was put in for irony, right?

Personal preference. I try not to take the Lord's name in vain.

I suppose I could have just said "thankfully" and it would have conveyed the same meaning. To each his own.
 
I try not to take the Lord's name in vain also. I just feel that only refers to the hebrew original.
 
I try not to take the Lord's name in vain also. I just feel that only refers to the hebrew original.

Fair enough. I could be wrong I guess.

Anyway, I do like the graphics. I am particularly impressed with the glistening oceans. The forests look nice as well. There are many different types of trees. It looks very promising to me.
 
those lakes look stupid and unatural. Firaxis needs to disign a better random generator for they're terrian placements.

I also hate how when your zoomed in, everything looks like its floating. hopefully this will be fixed in final version.
(emphasis added by me)

Quoted for irony.

I suggest giving Firaxis a bit of time to build the game before rushing to criticisms. Complaints about the graphics in Civ4 are fair game I guess.
 
Top Bottom