mouselmm
Asian Scenario Maker
What do you want in Civ 4? 3D screen or 2D interface?
Personally I perfer 2D because 3D lags too much on my computer.
Personally I perfer 2D because 3D lags too much on my computer.
2D or 3D?
- Thread starter mouselmm
- Start date
2D. An isometric, classical 3D view is just way to go for a round based strategy game.
A 3D world, perhaps even a globe, would perhaps look nice - but would be hard to play and control. All who want that should accept that this will limit depth and complexity a lot.
a near 3D isometric 2d map as in Civ3 has its advantages. They could work out the hills and mountains and make the map rotateable perhaps instead of going 3D... or do it simply and call the 2D "3D" for marketing reasons... to appease the 3D-shooter-crowd...
A 3D world, perhaps even a globe, would perhaps look nice - but would be hard to play and control. All who want that should accept that this will limit depth and complexity a lot.
a near 3D isometric 2d map as in Civ3 has its advantages. They could work out the hills and mountains and make the map rotateable perhaps instead of going 3D... or do it simply and call the 2D "3D" for marketing reasons... to appease the 3D-shooter-crowd...
I think this is the wrong question to ask. What does it matter, significantly, if it's 2D or 3D? Clear game elements can be made in either form. The UI is nearly independent of the dimensions of the graphics.
From what I've heard from some modders, it'll probably be EASIER to do different units without the need to render an inherently 3D object into 2D. I don't know enough to say, but I would have a tendency to believe them.
I've also heard/read that the load on the main CPU is LESS with 3D, assuming you have a 3D card, which a lot of computers have these days. This is because the imaging is off-loaded to the card and doesn't drain the main CPU's resources as much. Again, I don't know to say for sure, but it sounds plausible.
No answer, because I don't CARE....as long as the elements work. As long as they clearly provide information -- all the information -- about that unit/terrain or some of the info about a city or other main feature, I'm fine with it. It's not the style of graphics -- it's how they are used.
Arathorn
From what I've heard from some modders, it'll probably be EASIER to do different units without the need to render an inherently 3D object into 2D. I don't know enough to say, but I would have a tendency to believe them.
I've also heard/read that the load on the main CPU is LESS with 3D, assuming you have a 3D card, which a lot of computers have these days. This is because the imaging is off-loaded to the card and doesn't drain the main CPU's resources as much. Again, I don't know to say for sure, but it sounds plausible.
No answer, because I don't CARE....as long as the elements work. As long as they clearly provide information -- all the information -- about that unit/terrain or some of the info about a city or other main feature, I'm fine with it. It's not the style of graphics -- it's how they are used.
Arathorn
Vizurok
Magyar Soldier
Good question...
I think everybody prefers the better (3D) graphic mode BUT they're lots of ugly 3D games and lots of beautiful 2D games...
3D!
I think everybody prefers the better (3D) graphic mode BUT they're lots of ugly 3D games and lots of beautiful 2D games...
3D!
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
I would have loved to have a debate about this, however as I understand it is an academic question. It is going to be 3D and work is already well underway.
I know a few casual Civ players that don't have heavy 3D cards and have no real incentive to get one either, so I doubt they will be investing in Civ4 anytime soon.
My main worry about 3D is if it is going to make moving units and checking up on cities etc. take longer time - which is a worry I am puzzled that the real hardcore advocates for the 3D version don't have as they are also the same people saying Civ3 takes too long to play as it is. Moving about in 3D perspective could very well prove more time consuming pr. turn. On the other hand who knows what clever ideas they got at Firaxis for handling this
I know a few casual Civ players that don't have heavy 3D cards and have no real incentive to get one either, so I doubt they will be investing in Civ4 anytime soon.
My main worry about 3D is if it is going to make moving units and checking up on cities etc. take longer time - which is a worry I am puzzled that the real hardcore advocates for the 3D version don't have as they are also the same people saying Civ3 takes too long to play as it is. Moving about in 3D perspective could very well prove more time consuming pr. turn. On the other hand who knows what clever ideas they got at Firaxis for handling this
The Great Apple
Big Cheese
If it ain't broke, don't fix it! I don't see what 3D would add to the game. In many other games which have "gone 3D" it has hindered rather than helped gameplay. I can only thing of Mechcommander 2 off the top of my head, the original was a great game, but the sequal had crazy requirements, redundant full 3D, and an amazing bad AI - they spent too long on the graphics...
3D IMO has no place in third person turn based, or real time stratagy games.
3D IMO has no place in third person turn based, or real time stratagy games.
dojoboy
Tsalagi
3D
Anyone who has played AoM or RoN can attest to the added detail and immersive quality of 3D.
Anyone who has played AoM or RoN can attest to the added detail and immersive quality of 3D.
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
Those 2 are RTS games though. It is also my impression they intend to keep Civ4 a TBS game like all previous version of Civ.dojoboy said:
The Great Apple, I must agree - I think MC2 looked quite good, but not so much better than the original, and it lacked in gameplay - the original had much more nifty and interesting missions somehow.
I hope the "3D" is only a beefed up semi-3D-view. That would look very nice!
I hope the "3D" is only a beefed up semi-3D-view. That would look very nice!
dojoboy
Tsalagi
CyberChrist said:
And what coding difficulties would be presented for TBS? I really don't think 3D should present issues for TBS in any way.
CenturionV
Warrior Forever
2D, my hardware is stretched enough on big maps of civ 3 with many races. I can't see how adding 3d in civ 4 could help specifically in any way besides makeing the game look "cool", they should stick with the tried and true turn-based strategy 2d board.
It could look something like this:
(No, I didn't make this, it was a code sample I found)
Granted, it might have effects like water-levels that you can "see" (transparent water). That way, you can see your own subs.
(No, I didn't make this, it was a code sample I found)
Granted, it might have effects like water-levels that you can "see" (transparent water). That way, you can see your own subs.
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
Coding difficulties? I am not quite sure what you mean.dojoboy said:
The problems lies in the inherit differences in how you normally control a RTS game and how you normally control a TBS.
Ie. then in a RTS game you normally move units by marking single units or groups of units and then clicking where they go - and they will go about their way in a somewhat loose manner and often push each other aside ending up only approximately where you wanted them. While in a TBS game you normally move units from exact poistions to exact poistions and moving through exactly specified areas, and what I worry about is that this is going to require a lot more work for the player in a real 3D environment to achieve.
LordKestrel
King
Longasc said:
I couldn't have said it better myself. 2d isometric is the way to go. I have yet to see an interface for a 3d view that is as easy to use as a well designed 2d view, and if there isn't a need to be able to view something from all sides, why go 3d at all?
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
Thank you Chieftess - your example makes it easier to invisage exactly how it could become a lot more work to move units about on a 'wobbly' map like that 
dojoboy
Tsalagi
CyberChrist said:Thank you Chieftess - your example makes it easier to invisage exactly how it could become a lot more work to move units about on a 'wobbly' map like that
Yes, thanks Chieftess.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
@Arathorn: Stop being so freaking reasonable. I long since lost count of how many threads in this subforum I've been intending to say something in, only to discover you've already said much the same thing.
Hunter Noventa
Overlord
Seems like if they made the game 3D, it'd look a lot like Alpha Centauri. This would make every unit fully 3D as well,s ince you have to bae able to see odd parts of it while it goes down the backside of a hill. While this isn't a bad thing necessarily, it can strain some computers.
Similar threads
- Poll
