Sub-Par graphics, congrats firaxis.

[mechaerik]

I find it odd that you are complaining about something that is almost certain (>99.9) to change. This is after all, not the final version.


And besides, I think it looks nice. Except the rivers, but as I said, almost certain to change.

 

[croxis]

There are not the art assets we are looking for *jedi mind finger wave thing*

As someone else mention, dev cycles! Many of these assets will be replaced over the coming months. Shaders will be tweaked, etc.

 

[CossackProblem]

I thought the graphics looked really good.

 

[_hero_]

Sub-par graphics is much better than releasing a game that 95% of people won't be able to play for a few years at which point the graphics will be sub-par anyways. Turn based strategy games don't sell because of their graphics.

 

[Thormodr]

Sub-par graphics is much better than releasing a game that 95% of people won't be able to play for a few years at which point the graphics will be sub-par anyways. Turn based strategy games don't sell because of their graphics.

Excellent post. You've summed it up very well. Firaxis could make cutting edge graphics that most people would have a hard time running efficiently but that would be effectively cutting their own throats. I think with each edition the graphics have improved and I'm sure CiVIlization (Civ 6) will look even better. They will always be a step behind and I'm fine with that as long as the game play is good.

It'd be nice if they could release two versions, a cutting edge graphics version for those with super computers and a normal one for the masses but that's just not realistic.

 

[Fredric Drum]

Excellent post. You've summed it up very well. Firaxis could make cutting edge graphics that most people would have a hard time running efficiently but that would be effectively cutting their own throats. I think with each edition the graphics have improved and I'm sure CiVIlization (Civ 6) will look even better. They will always be a step behind and I'm fine with that as long as the game play is good.

It'd be nice if they could release two versions, a cutting edge graphics version for those with super computers and a normal one for the masses but that just not realistic.

Or do the obvious thing, like most game developers do, let you adjust your graphics settings, which you can already do in Civ4 (although I'm not sure how much of a difference that setting makes in Civ4). Problem solved and everybody happy?

 

[Afgnwrlrd]

So far the game looks like Civ 4. With hexagons. And archers that shoot further. Big whoop. I really don't see any major improvement in AI coming down the tubes. The best thing they could do is have a built in editor feature since it really is the mods that make the game.

It's just sad to play an fps where everything looks real and then come back and see that civ hasn't changed at all.

BTW does the sinusoidal city borders bug anyone else besides me? couldn't they have just drawn a strait line and cut off all the little corners? The only squiggly borders i've ever seen were from rivers or other bodies of water

 

[PieceOfMind]

It's just sad to play an fps where everything looks real and then come back and see that civ hasn't changed at all.

If that makes you sad then I have some sympathy for you. Strategy games are NEVER defined by their eye candy, you will most likely forever be disappointed with the genre. Hey, you have awesome FPS games though, right?

 

[Takhisis]

If strategy games were only graphics, then I'd have to scrap Dune 2. no wai!

 

[CornPlanter]

The Graphics are fine it's all about the gameplay, if you want awesome graphics play an FPS

I never really understood this so called "argument". What is it about FPS that makes it monopolist of good graphics (supposedly)? Complete nonsense. Civ certainly is not all about gameplay, otherwise they wouldn't improve graphics at all. And most of us gamers do like good graphics. Theoretically you can play Civ-like game from command line only, if its all about gameplay.

Strategy games are NEVER defined by their eye candy, you will most likely forever be disappointed with the genre.

Surely they are not defined by that. But their graphics improve too. Compare Dune II to Starcraft to Dawn of War to Starcraft II I dont see anything wrong with good graphics in any genre whatsoever. It's a different feeling, you know, when you've got a nicely rendered army of soldiers to command or when you've got 32 bit icon with number 10 representing 10 soldiers to command.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Surely they are not defined by that. But their graphics improve too. Compare Dune II to Starcraft to Dawn of War to Starcraft II I dont see anything wrong with good graphics in any genre whatsoever. It's a different feeling, you know, when you've got a nicely rendered army of soldiers to command or when you've got 32 bit icon with number 10 representing 10 soldiers to command.

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.
There are many other reasons I could list but basically all the best strategy games I can think of have never been "leading edge" in their graphics except perhaps if you compare them only to other games in the same genre. Comparing to genres which rely very heavily on their graphics for user enjoyment (e.g. FPS genre) is usually a pointless activity.

 

[Warspite2]

Once again Firaxis stinks it up with the graphics. imo, and I know a lot fo you wont care or will disagree, they looked aged already. The land terrian as always stinks. The tiles have a lack of variety and still doesn't blend well.

The snow-caped mountains don't even look awe awe inspiring. I think they need to make the mountains bigger because you don't get the feeling that they're even there. Go into google earth and you can see what real terrain looks like. They never get the aesthetics aspect of they're civ games down. Its a shame because it would be ultimate.

I'm won't completely write off the look of the game. Its obviously a lot better than its predecessor, but firaxis is just never up to date with graphic technology.

Once again someone stinks it up with an insignificant post regarding graphics. Hey why don't you load up civ 1, civ 2, then civ 3, then civ 4, then compare. Graphics and animations are awesome in CIV4 compared to any other TBS game with this kind of depth.

 

[conception]

The graphics look pretty nice to me. But I'm one of those biased fans who doesn't have a top end computer and hates the fact that new incarnations of non-graphic dependent strategy games still tend to push the specs of their day just because it's expected. I don't care if the graphical improvements are negligible, I care about the gameplay changes and improvements. Right now my earning potential at my job is essentially living expenses so a new computer is not going to be possible.

 

[cemsity]

here use the first screenshots relesed of civ 4

compared to an actual Screen of Civ 4


See the difference the game looks nothing like the early photos.

 

[civ_king]

I never really understood this so called "argument". What is it about FPS that makes it monopolist of good graphics (supposedly)? Complete nonsense. Civ certainly is not all about gameplay, otherwise they wouldn't improve graphics at all. And most of us gamers do like good graphics. Theoretically you can play Civ-like game from command line only, if its all about gameplay.


Surely they are not defined by that. But their graphics improve too. Compare Dune II to Starcraft to Dawn of War to Starcraft II I dont see anything wrong with good graphics in any genre whatsoever. It's a different feeling, you know, when you've got a nicely rendered army of soldiers to command or when you've got 32 bit icon with number 10 representing 10 soldiers to command.

too many FPSers are Graphics Obsessed, I stopped playing civ I not because of graphics but because the other ones are more strategic, lower graphics make it better for us people on older machines, I have a Pentium 4 in my computer

 

[Oatse]

What's so bad about the graphics? I'm not really seeing the eye-rending horribleness here.

 

[exorbit]

here use the first screenshots relesed of civ 4

compared to an actual Screen of Civ 4


See the difference the game looks nothing like the early photos.

thx for sharing !

i actually like the early screens because they were less cartoony

 

[Rexflex]

I'd agree the river looks just a tad false, but overall the graphics are a significant improvement over the existing CIV display. Given as said many times already it is only the first screenshots with over 6 months to work on, I think they are on to a good start.

 

[CornPlanter]

@ Piece of Mind: completely agree with every word you said. Especially with the word appropriate which is sort of subjective. This thread is all about appropriate. Are Civ5 graphics appropriate - or are they not? In OP's opinion, they are not. In my opinion, well... I'm perfectly fine with what I've seen in screenshots so far, but I would like it even more with at least Dawn of War II quality of graphics. Doesn't matter that much to me, right. Would be nice but not required.

 

[mrt144]

Poly fan? I don't think they'd appreciate that.

No we would not.