Sub-Par graphics, congrats firaxis.

Sorry to say, but Google Earth isn't a good reference when it comes to seeing how a region terrain is. See al those brown, gray and green polygons? They are there because of the quality of the pictures. Of course, if you zoom in the quality of the terrain will be alot better, but still it's more a geographical tool than a tool used to "see how beatiful is Earth's terrain".

About the graphics, some people want to Civ V graphics to be like this, other people want to zoom up in a jungle and see something like this. Sorry but niether graphic level will be provided. I think that the graphics are ok, whish the rivesr were better and stuff... But as long as they make the game "better than Civ IV in ALL aspects" I'm satisfied.

I know that the exemples were extreme. Also, I'm not bothered by the "cartoonish" graphics in Civ IV, but I agree that more realistic graphics in a more serious game is more appropriate.:goodjob:
 

Attachments

  • Google Earth.jpg
    Google Earth.jpg
    133.2 KB · Views: 226
Blue Marble:
Spoiler :


Blue Marble for Civ IV
Spoiler :


I like my Planet Earths to look more natural, not like a pixelated version of a Rand McNally map. It really ruins the immersive experience.

Let's not confuses two different ideas here. One of them is that Civ needs better graphics, as in better texturing / effects / etc... The other is that Civ needs to look more natural, like nontiley terrain. I have no problem with the hex tiling, its just that it should look a little more natural.

Skyre Noktis said:
I have no idea what you're talking about. It's a tile-based strategy game, so of course it looks unnatural. The most important thing the graphics do is to convey information. This means they have to make it clear which tile has which terrain type, so you end up with a blob of water for a lake, a blob of trees for a forest, etc. This is unavoidable without throwing usability concerns completely out the window and making the game a right pain to play.
Click to expand...

Why is this unavoidable? Natural-looking terrain is not mutually exclusive with a clear layout.

PieceOfMind said:
I agree, but if anything I want a strategy game like Civ 4 to lag behind in terms of leading edge graphics. For one, there's the issue of better graphics usually meaning more expensive development, probably drawing parts of the budget away from what matters more - the gameplay design etc. (not to mention driving up the retail price of the game, potentially driving away budget-conscious consumers)
Secondly, gamers who favour strategy games typically aren't looking for eye candy and as such will be satisfied with appropriate graphics rather than cutting edge graphics, especially considering leading edge graphics typically require expensive hardware, hardware much more expensive than the game itself.
Click to expand...

Spending more time on graphics does not necessarily mean spending less time on gameplay. Also, Firaxis isn't just trying to sell Civ to us, it's trying to sell it to gamers everywhere, and why should we frown upon something that can easily help expand the community?
 
DPyro: While you want a more natural, blended terrain, another person wants a more "tiley", informative and less confusing terrain. Maybe in the future, the problem will be solved, but for now we'll have to be satisfied with a not so smooth transition between terrains. Also, changing the game with the only objective of selling more copies, will probablymake the game a peice of ... for people who are familiar to the Civilization series. The only way to make the map "not look like a pixelated version of a Rand McNally map" or more like the blue marble picture, is to either remove tiles or make the maps insanely huge. Also, to make a globe map you'll have to use hexagons with pentagons (Civ V) or irregular tiles, or no tiles at all (kinda like the Super Mario Galaxy engine).
 
They certainly could have the graphics blend better and completely ignore the tiles when it comes to deciding where one terrain type ends, and another begins.

As an example, one hexigon is 1/3 mountain and 2/3 hills. If you build a mine it is 2/3 as productive as a mine on a hexigon which is completely covered by a hill.

Perhaps if one hexigon is 1/4 forest and 3/4 plains then placing a farm will cause the 1/4 that is forest to get chopped.

While this kind of functionality is very possible I doubt it would add much to game play beyond making gameplay more complicated. (e.g. understanding why a mine has 1/6 the production of another mine. If you don't have the tech to chop forests then what do you do when you go to farm the 1/4 forest and 3/4 plains hexigon mentioned above?)
 
Since when does the
complicated game = good game​
equation hold true?
 
Exactly, another artist takes money from the percentage of total budget allocated to the art dept. If the art dept doesn't have the money, then the artist is not employed.
Click to expand...
Spending more time on graphics does not necessarily mean spending less time on gameplay.
Click to expand...

Guys, you're being precious.

The game company, at the beginning of the project, sits down and says: "Ok, we have a Development budget of $A. We're going to allocate that across a bunch of different features. $x will go for AI coders, $y will go for graphics designers, $z will go for gameplay designers, $w will go for engine coders. Now, this is is a civ game, so mostly people care about gameplay and AI, graphics isn't a big priority. So let's not make y too big, that way we have more left for x and z".

A dollar more allocated to the graphics department *is* a dollar less allocated to other departments, its just that its set at the initial budget setting phases (which may be occassionally updated over time), not the individual dollar levels.

Money is fungible, while overall budgets are relatively fixed.

So yes, a game with more of an emphasis on game and engine design work and AI will, all else equal, have less money to spend on artists.

Having said that, the terrain looked good to me.

Oh, and:
As an example, one hexigon is 1/3 mountain and 2/3 hills. If you build a mine it is 2/3 as productive as a mine on a hexigon which is completely covered by a hill.

Perhaps if one hexigon is 1/4 forest and 3/4 plains then placing a farm will cause the 1/4 that is forest to get chopped.
Click to expand...

sounds *horrible*.
 
JBConquests said:
As an example, one hexigon is 1/3 mountain and 2/3 hills. If you build a mine it is 2/3 as productive as a mine on a hexigon which is completely covered by a hill.

Perhaps if one hexigon is 1/4 forest and 3/4 plains then placing a farm will cause the 1/4 that is forest to get chopped.
Click to expand...

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit:yuck:
 
AlpsStranger said:
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit:yuck:
Click to expand...

Actually it's not a bad idea. It looks like some hexes in the screen shots have only 1/2 to 1/4 forest cover. Some are 1/2 hills and 1/2 plains.

If they get rid of workers and go to a PW (Public Works) system like Call to Power then you could say farm 3/4 of it and leave the 1/4 to forest. I think it would look visually appealing anyway. :)
 
DPyro said:
Like this:


The tiles are still pretty obvious, but by sharing a small fraction of the total terrain on a tile you could smooth it out and make the map not look like a honeycomb.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what they are doing already. You might want more spill, but I think this is enough:
 

Attachments

  • hexspill.JPG
    hexspill.JPG
    40.7 KB · Views: 1,314
I just want to say I would prefer non-flashy graphics, even 'worse' than the screenshots shown already, so we get to use our system resources on the things that count. Cos unless you really want to buy new hardware, then having all kinds of funky visual stuff is going to mean smaller, less complex game worlds with fewer simultaneous civs, as I see it.

As someone who grew up with Amiga 500 games, everything these days looks the same to me! I still like the graphics on games like The Settlers III :). The hexes alone should allow for less blocky-looking landscapes.
 
Probably the best game I've played for depth and strategy is Europa Universalis III. The graphics were and are nothing to write home about, but it's simply one of the few games that offers the variety of options a real world leader would have to deal with. An incredible game.

Civilization IV still looks good and is a lot of fun. I don't need a game to be the end all, be all of graphics. I think the final Civilization V will look great, but please make sure we have a lot of diplomacy options and a brilliant AI.
 
-=Yin=- said:
This is exactly what they are doing already. You might want more spill, but I think this is enough:
Click to expand...

The problem is their technique. They appear to just be alpha blending the different tile textures. This leads to such ugliness as underwater roads and farms.
 
honestly, the game is in alpha. some of the graphics are obviously ported directly from civ4, just look at the horses in the city shot above^. its way too early to be getting too angry about graphics. that said, i think they are off to a great start. the shots they have released so far show lots of potential. the hex map makes for MUCH smoother and more natural looking terrain, and they've done a decent job getting blending to work between various terrains with just enough spillover.
 
Varwnos said:


This city looks terrible. I hope they won't release the game with such primitive graphics.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the city graphics are just placeholders. They'll look much better in the final version.
 
you can have floating buildings. Some cities are built on the water. :)
 
I was about to nerdrage on the OP, but decided to take an extra look at the images... and it makes me sad to say that the OP has a point. The terrain should blend better - overall better graphics would be nice.
 
they look amazing to me. I don't see what the fuss is. It's only when you zoom in you see the flaws like the city above. I'm the type who rarely zooms civ4 in. I keep a medium distance out.

To be sure, like the post above me, I'm looking at the screenies again. (the 3 in the announcement thread post 1)

first one: cows look a bit lame, they'll probably get redone. the ocean looks great! The best looking ocean by far. Much better than the horrible civ3 ocean.

second one: ahh I see the city flaw pictured above. Didn't notice it the first time. Hopefully they fix that. Hardly a game breaker, though. The units look kind of funky, like they are wearing dresses LOL

3rd one: grassland look amazing. Realistic colors. Sure it isn't bright and shiny, but I like the more realistic colors. Something funky is going on on that river square with the farm next to it. I'm not sure what that is.
 
graphics, who cares? So long as its a step up from civ4, which it looks like it will be, I'm happy. I want good gameplay, graphics are secondary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Navelgazer
Dream Civs/Leaders for Civ 7
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
3K
Alexander's Hetaroi
Alexander's Hetaroi
Boris Gudenuf
Visions of the Seventh Civilization
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
6K
dripyanim
D
Blake00
Heroes of Might and Magic 2 Scenario Mod (& HoMM1 Addon) - Release Thread
Replies
6
Views
2K
CurtSibling
CurtSibling
E
[BTS] Earth Equatorial Islands - a more accurate realistic map for Civ4 BTS RFC
Replies
5
Views
337
HNation
HNation
R
3.9.1 Maya Photojournal (Deity/Standard)
2
Replies
20
Views
3K
Kis121
K
Top Bottom