Ranos said:
Civ 4: 3 Dimensional graphics (constant movements and shifting of terrain, units etc.) = standard size maps for computers meeting the recommended requirements.
So tell me, what is the justification for 3D terrain graphics that have little effect on gameplay but do plenty to slow down performance?
Ranos said:
So this is nothing more than an attempt at trolling or starting a big arguement. If you don't like the game then don't play.
See, that's just it: I
love the game
as a strategy game and I can tell you that it is a major improvement (having owned and played/modded to death every single version of it) but Civ4's graphics have not served me in any way whatsoever--they are bling for the sake of bling.
Okay, that's not entirely true: I can zoom in on a city and see what buildings it has...whoop-dee-doo! That's hardly a justification, as left-clicking on a city to get its properties, though not as fancy, does exactly the same job--and saves you having to remember what each of the buildings looks like exclusively for the purpose of being able to identify them while zoomed in.
BTW, trolling usually refers to the act of putting down people's arguments regardless of their merit. My post does not fit that category--even though I put it the way I did.
(Yes, I do want to start an argument because this is the General Discussions forum and I want to discuss the issue of why a TBS game needs graphics that are good enough for a FPS. If you don't want to deal with contentious issues having to do with Civ4 perhaps one of the other Civ4 forums would be more to your liking.)
The issue is that Civ4 eats up system resources for no good reason and I expect someone to defend the decision to go in this direction with a real argument that proves that there was no other choice. I chose the map size issue because increasingly large maps have marked this franchise and the reason (so players can marvel at a much smaller world that looks oh so pretty) is not justifiable, even from the financial perspective (i.e. it's cheaper to use already-existing 3D models rather than converting them into 2D a la Civ3).
And yes, I'm aware that Civ3 started with smaller maximum map sizes initially, but in that case the only impediment was the designers' lack of foresight, whereas here there is a physical impediment: most systems won't be able to handle Civ4 playing on a 360x360 map.
MrCynical said:
I might make the point however that a late game huge map is far more playable in Civ 4 than a late game map in Civ 3. While Civ 4 may sometimes have sluggish scrolling and low frame rates at this stage, the interturn never takes more than 20 to 30 seconds even right at the end of a huge map game. In Civ 3 on a large map on the same computer the interturn would take anything up to fifteen minutes on a bad turn at the end. Frankly I find this an improvement, though maps bigger than huge have never appealed to me anyway. I like being able to end a turn without having time to have lunch and take a shower before the next one. It wasn't uncommon I'd have a book to read while the late game turn went by in Civ 3. As for crashes, well it doesn't for me, my sympathies if it does for you.
I think the reason turn interval is pretty constant in Civ4 has to be because it reads map data more efficiently than Civ3 does. That's bloody excellent. But the issue is that why should map size be restricted because of something that has little to do with TBS? Program efficienty can only make up for so much. Crashes are a problem for many because Civ4 is really picky and when it doesn't like something it cuts out without thinking twice about it. Why should players have to put up with that for the sake of something that does little more for their game experience than what blue floor lights, strobes and a mini-earthquake-triggering car stereo do for a Benz?
MrCynical said:
Civ 4 is a resource hog. People know this and grousing isn't likely to change it.
That's not the point, the point is that no one has justified it being so (or really questioned the logic behind this for that matter).
If stuff like this isn't said here, where then? In reviews by people with top notch systems that say everything is "awesome" as long as it's got looks?