Huge Maps: Civ4=150x110 (with crashes), Civ3=362x362 (no crashes)...???

[yoshi]

Translation: I can play Civ3 on a 131044 square map but the biggest map I've seen anyone play Civ4 on is a measly 16500 plots (and all but the best systems will grumble about even that)! Civ2 plays on bigger maps than that!

Someone care to explain this?

[TeraHammer]

You said it yourself:

Originally Posted by yoshi

(and all but the best systems will grumble about even that)

All these animated graphics on the map costs the computer dearly I guess.

[yoshi]

Originally Posted by TeraHammer

All these animated graphics on the map costs the computer dearly I guess.

That's what I though initially but it's your card doing the 3D rendering whereas the map data has little to do with your card.

If Civ4 is a modder's dream, then what of the fact that most modders around here like playing on massive maps--mainly because of the higher level of detail they allow? (Hell, people even complained that Civ3's 130,00+ size maps were still too small for their purposes!)


I'll admit the real reason why I posted this is because I want to delight in watching all the people who dismissed posts that criticised Civ4's high requirements squirm as they try to justify this.

[Ranos]

Originally Posted by yoshi

Translation: I can play Civ3 on a 131044 square map but the biggest map I've seen anyone play Civ4 on is a measly 16500 plots (and all but the best systems will grumble about even that)! Civ2 plays on bigger maps than that!

Someone care to explain this?

Civ 3: 2 Dimensional graphics = easy for any computer meeting the recommended requirements.

Civ 4: 3 Dimensional graphics (constant movements and shifting of terrain, units etc.) = standard size maps for computers meeting the recommended requirements.

Originally Posted by yoshi

I'll admit the real reason why I posted this is because I want to delight in watching all the people who dismissed posts that criticised Civ4's high requirements squirm as they try to justify this.
Any questions?

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.

[MrCynical]

Civ 4 is a resource hog. People know this and grousing isn't likely to change it.

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.

[yoshi]

Originally Posted by Ranos

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?

Originally Posted by Ranos

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.

Originally Posted by MrCynical

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?

Originally Posted by MrCynical

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?

[Yzman]

I still have constant graphical errors with this game, I just play with them. Its great, sometimes I can't read anything, sometimes random things dissappear, sometimes the game just crashes. Usually terrain just changes color though. And my computer far surpasses the requirements.

[aaronflavor]

The main problem people have with Civ4 is not having enough memory. The simple fact of the matter is that all of the cool algorithms these days use a good bit of memory. Things could be made to use less memory, at a significant increase in bugs and expense. Having said that, I'm getting the feeling that Firaxis (and Take2) are attempting to generate more profits by lowering expenses. So, the game could cost the same, and have better performance, but then someone wouldn't be making nearly as much money.

Blame capitalism, which doesn't self-regulate to the consumer's benefit for anything other than very simple goods and services.

Of course, most people vastly underestimate the return-on-investment they'll get from getting more RAM. Most people, including those on laptops, and including those who have already done extensive upgrades, have a lot of availible system memory capacity, and could at least double their availible memory. Just $50-100 worth of RAM will generally make a tremendous difference.

[Ranos]

Originally Posted by yoshi

So tell me, what is the justification for 3D terrain graphics that have little effect on gameplay but do plenty to slow down performance?

<snip>

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).

You won't find a gameplay reason that 3D graphics were introduced into the Civ Franchise. It was purely a monetary/marketing reason. Introducing the 3D graphics was probably intended to grap the attention of RTS gamers. More and more games are using 3D engines because 3D gives a better feel to the game. It makes it seem more real, has more attention grabbers and is more likely to keep people interested.

Firaxis and 2K are in this to make money. They want to make a good game that as many people as possible will enjoy. This will continue to be the primary means by which they develope and program games. They do want player input, as has been proven by many of the changes made to Civ 4 from Civ 3.

Originally Posted by yoshi

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.)

Unless I am mistaken, trolling is trying to create an arguement for the sake of an having an arguement. Putting down peoples arguements is called flaming.

The topic of this post and the questions that you have posed in it are items that no one here, or probably anywhere for that matter, can answer to your satisfaction. As noted above, the reasons were monetary and marketing. If these answers are what you are looking for, then you can rest easy. If this doesn't satisfy you, then no answer anyone can give you will and you don't need to continue posting about it.

[Helmling]

I disagree. I think that the 3D engine is a gameplay feature. For me, playing Civ isn't about the challenge of beating the computer via neat tricks with math, but the fun of the game is the immersive experience.

The new world is more immersive, and while I was initially very wary of the scale down in the Huge maps, I must say that it hasn't really bothered me in game.

That said, I would happily play on even bigger maps if I had a system that could handle them...which I don't...yet!

[Ranos]

Originally Posted by Helmling

I disagree. I think that the 3D engine is a gameplay feature. For me, playing Civ isn't about the challenge of beating the computer via neat tricks with math, but the fun of the game is the immersive experience.

The new world is more immersive, and while I was initially very wary of the scale down in the Huge maps, I must say that it hasn't really bothered me in game.

That said, I would happily play on even bigger maps if I had a system that could handle them...which I don't...yet!

While the 3D engine makes the game look nicer and kind of sucks you into the game more, it has no effect on gameplay in any way. I have enjoyed playing Risk or Axis & Allies for years (boardgame style not the computer versions). they are strategy games, if you didn't know, and the fact that they consist of a piece of cardboard with pretty pictures on it, plastic pieces, cards and some dice has no effect on whether it is fun or not.

Likewise, TBS games are not about pretty pictures or the latest and greatest thing in gaming, but about the strategy of building up your forces to crush your opponents. I would enjoy Civ 4 just as much if it used the Civ 3 style graphics.

I would be lying if I said I didn't like the 3D graphics and I would not download a mod that changed the Civ 4 graphics into Civ 3 graphics. I have no problem, after installing 1.52, with running Civ 4 on my computer, even on huge maps.

The point of this thread was not what everyone thought about the graphics or how they viewed the graphics, but why Firaxis and 2K used a 3D engine. I hope I have answered that question in my previous post to the OP's satisfaction.

[Bushface]

I am in at least two minds here. My aging computer will play Civ4 only at minimal graphic settings, and as yet I have played only with Standard world size. This has the advantage for me that it can be mapped on to an A4 quadrille-ruled sheet on which I can put city and resource locations, etc. etc., to suit my nanomanagement style. Even at that, scrolling gets slow and jerky in the late game. But I do like the 3D graphics which must surely be the main reason for memory hogging: after all, without them there would be no Funny Screenshots thread to amuse me. The bloodthirsty part of me enjoys watching the enemy's little toy soldiers disappear one by one under the barrage of my tanks - except in the very frequent cases where my tanks go all lopsided under a rain of arrows, of course. Do you see enemy attacks in the same detail as yours if you are running at full detail ?
That being said, the 3D graphics are pure eye candy and do not affect the gameplay for me. I try to keep wars short, by having overwhelming force, and spend most of my playing time developing as best I can.
I am beginning to promise myself a new machine later in the year, or later if Vista is delayed (remembering that Microsoft years are not like the calendar years of real life). Oh for a 10GHz processor, 4GB of RAM (or more), a 1GB 32 pipe video card, and a 42" plasma screen with 4112x2113 resolution - unless a holographic 3D tank becomes available. By that time I suspect we'll all be playing Civ6 or 7, and there will still be problems.

[Phoenix_56721]

I could be wrong but I thought Firaxis said the the Huge Terra map was bigger then any map of Civ3, I could swear I read this somewhere.

Also there was one other reason they decided to use the 3D engine in Civ4, and that was to improve the interface. And I for one love it, the interface in Civ3 was just plain hard to navigate except for the Civapeada which was ten times better. But then again it had to be because there was really very little information available while in the main screen. In Civ4 I hardly ever have to use the Civapeada because everything there in front of you.

[bonscott]

Gamers today expect 3D graphics. Period.

[Ranos]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_56721

I could be wrong but I thought Firaxis said the the Huge Terra map was bigger then any map of Civ3, I could swear I read this somewhere.

You are wrong, no offense. The Huge map in Civ 4 is, IIRC, about the size of a Large map in Civ 3.

Originally Posted by Phoenix_56721

Also there was one other reason they decided to use the 3D engine in Civ4, and that was to improve the interface. And I for one love it, the interface in Civ3 was just plain hard to navigate except for the Civapeada which was ten times better. But then again it had to be because there was really very little information available while in the main screen. In Civ4 I hardly ever have to use the Civapeada because everything there in front of you.

The only thing the 3D engine changed was the fact that you no longer have to go into the city screen to see what buildings you have built there since they are right out on the main map. Everything else is almost identical. Unit information is available by moving the mouse over the unit and terrain information is available the same way. In Civ 3, you had to click on those items to get that information, but that is a minor change.

The Civilopedia is for getting detailed information that isn't available via the main screen. Information on a unit that you don't have or can't build yet or details about a certain tech that aren't clear in the tech screen.

Originally Posted by bonscott

Gamers today expect 3D graphics. Period.

I'm a gamer and I don't expect 3D graphics all of the time. I would be happy, as I said, with 2D graphics in TBS games.

[aaronflavor]

In retrospect, I think the decision to make CivIV 'true' 3D is rather suspicious, since the empire is very rarely rotated except in pitch for elevation change. Besides that, depth buffering is rarely used to any particularly great effect.

It seems that since Civ4 really gets so little out of true 3D anyway, it would have been better to stick with the faux 3D techniques. In my opinion, the graphics themselves would be just as good, and still appear 3D. 2D sprites or billboards with an alpha channel are more than sufficient for certain objects that are never rotated or yawed. This is even more true given the 'discreet' nature of the altitude zoom. The animations and similar that require depth buffering can all be pre-calculated or pre-animated.

Alternately, since apparently someone at Firaxis was fired up about 'true 3D,' they really should have gotten more milage out of it. You know, they should have given us some cool stuff that would make us drool, like other true 3D games that were recently released. (HL2 and D3 come to mind.) There's no point in wasting all of these resources just to give us the level of graphics not too advanced compared to what was availible five years ago (even comparable to SC3K). Perhaps if they had gone all of the way, it would have been worth it.

So really, does anyone think Civ4 graphics are all that good compared to other games that require similar system specs?

[Phoenix_56721]

http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/refe...ipts_guide.php

Global Map: World Wrap left to right
Huge Oceanic Map: 104 plots wide, 64 plots tall, at "Standard" map size Bigger than Civ3!!! Terra maps are BIGGER THAN equivalent Civ3 maps of the same sizes!

This is from Sirian map scripts, am I reading this wrong but it sure looks like Civ4 Terra maps are bigger?

[Phoenix_56721]

At Ranos

The only thing the 3D engine changed was the fact that you no longer have to go into the city screen to see what buildings you have built there since they are right out on the main map. Everything else is almost identical. Unit information is available by moving the mouse over the unit and terrain information is available the same way. In Civ 3, you had to click on those items to get that information, but that is a minor change.

What about the ability to turn on you're resource display, and explaining what worker action is available or not yet available for that tile. Also showing you in the mini city screen things like you can double you're prodution of wall's with stone in red or green depending on whether or not you have it. I could go on and on, Civ3 didn't have this intuitive of a interface whether its because of the switch to 3D or to just a better design I think 200% improvement!

EDIT: I forgot my favorite new addition to the interface, the ability to draw lines and place sign posts. I love this in MP games, although my partner usually gets annoyed with my when I draw a giant smiley face across his kingdom. Then wrights "GEEK" across mine, this is great fun!!!

[Bushface]

@Phoenix - "ability to draw lines and place signposts" - What, what, what ? All I have been able to find is the "ping" button, no use to a single player because the ping disappears on scrolling off screen. I would very much like to be able to label a tile, even with just a letter, for future reference when I have spotted something about which I must do something but, at the moment, can't. Lines I am less sure about, but if I can draw them then some use will surely present itself. One has to draw the line somewhere . . .

[Bluemofia]

Civ III is made when the older systems of today are new.
Civ IV is made when the new systems of today are still new.

Thus, the newer, more powerful computers can handle Civ III easy, with it's 2D graphics, while Civ IV and it's 3D graphics are very large loads for them to handle.

Heck, my computer is ancient, and I need to double my graphics card abilities just to play Civ IV.