thenooblet22
King
Am I the only one who finds the move towards three-dimensional units and environments 1) visually unappealing and 2) counterproductive for an enjoyable gaming experience? I'll explain both.
1) Civilization will never achieve visual realism, now and in the near future. There are too many moving pieces, too much on screen, for the average computer to perform adequately. To compensate, the art design is then limited to low poly models and low quality textures (in comparison to contemporary examples like Call of Duty or Crysis-->FPS games, I know, but exhibit what's impossible for the Civilization series). So in that light, what is the point of continuing down this path when the optimal best is cartoons or caricatures of realism. I for one would much prefer the best a two-dimensional world can offer, with perhaps a few three-dimensional features thrown in. High quality textures and animations could provide pseudo-three-dimensions onto the units and environments without sacrificing computer performance, all the while looking, in my opinion, leaps and bounds more realistic and aesthetically-pleasing than the three-dimensional cartoons we must gaze upon and pick through.
2) As mentioned in my previous point (as it is hard to really separate the two), three-dimensional graphics detract from the computer performance, making the experience less smooth and, more importantly, longer between turns for the average computer to process. Besides that, this disadvantage also affects other aspects of the gaming experience. Because the computer is digesting an enormity of polygons, the sizes of the worlds must be reduced to create a manageable field of performance. This means less hexagons. This means less units. The whole gaming experience is altered just for the (mediocre, in my opinion) three-dimensional illusion. This is just of one example. I'm sure there are perhaps others. All in all, three-dimensional graphics detract, not add, to the gaming experience. There is no tactical or practical use a player can gain from them.
For those who can bear read through my rambling, does anyone feel this way?
1) Civilization will never achieve visual realism, now and in the near future. There are too many moving pieces, too much on screen, for the average computer to perform adequately. To compensate, the art design is then limited to low poly models and low quality textures (in comparison to contemporary examples like Call of Duty or Crysis-->FPS games, I know, but exhibit what's impossible for the Civilization series). So in that light, what is the point of continuing down this path when the optimal best is cartoons or caricatures of realism. I for one would much prefer the best a two-dimensional world can offer, with perhaps a few three-dimensional features thrown in. High quality textures and animations could provide pseudo-three-dimensions onto the units and environments without sacrificing computer performance, all the while looking, in my opinion, leaps and bounds more realistic and aesthetically-pleasing than the three-dimensional cartoons we must gaze upon and pick through.
2) As mentioned in my previous point (as it is hard to really separate the two), three-dimensional graphics detract from the computer performance, making the experience less smooth and, more importantly, longer between turns for the average computer to process. Besides that, this disadvantage also affects other aspects of the gaming experience. Because the computer is digesting an enormity of polygons, the sizes of the worlds must be reduced to create a manageable field of performance. This means less hexagons. This means less units. The whole gaming experience is altered just for the (mediocre, in my opinion) three-dimensional illusion. This is just of one example. I'm sure there are perhaps others. All in all, three-dimensional graphics detract, not add, to the gaming experience. There is no tactical or practical use a player can gain from them.
For those who can bear read through my rambling, does anyone feel this way?
