Snoopy
Prince
Yeah, Imagine Civ being like that? That would certainly mature the Civilization franchise. Gotta do it or Civ could be lost in time..
2D or 3D?
- Thread starter mouselmm
- Start date
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
3D - if done properly and fits within the series.
Arathorn said:
Huh? 3D is much harder, in programming, hardware requirements and artistic rendering. Going 3D is going to make it much harder for mod makers. Frankly, I see no reason why a turn based, strategic wargame like Civ should even consider going 3D. What could it possibly add to play value? The ability to relocate the camera? Who cares?
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
They licensed the Gamebryo engine which is fairly easy to use and allows importing of 3D models and animations from the major packages (and they have been using it for Pirates so their programmers and artists are up on it).
Having done both 3D and 2D graphics for a living, 3D is easier once you have a math background (if you are a programmer) and good tools (if you are an artist).
Seeing game artists work nearly every day I can say that these days they generally do nearly all their artwork in 3D anyways and then render them down to 2D when they are doing a 2D game (like Civ3) or when doing UI elements.
Having done both 3D and 2D graphics for a living, 3D is easier once you have a math background (if you are a programmer) and good tools (if you are an artist).
Seeing game artists work nearly every day I can say that these days they generally do nearly all their artwork in 3D anyways and then render them down to 2D when they are doing a 2D game (like Civ3) or when doing UI elements.
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
Well, look at that Pirates screenshot. It's beautiful, it really is. And it probably isn't much if any more work than how the graphics for Civ 3 were done.daengle said:
As Neomega said, giving you the full feeling of being within a different world is important. Having better graphics does do that. Civ should have the best graphics possible without detracting from gameplay.
amirsan
King of all Kings
I wont buy it if its not 3D, and good 3d enviorement like what I soon to see in Rome: Total War. 
Thats the only reason I am excited for civ4!
Thats the only reason I am excited for civ4! Synthshadow
Bow to my Chieftainess
Its 2006???? I thought it was 2004??? I knew I was playing an epic Civ game at the moment but have I really been ingrossed in it for 2 years???????? I've missed so much, my babies first word....their first steps.... Well I would've done if I'd had any!!
Synthshadow
Bow to my Chieftainess
* As a response to Neomega *
BrianB
Chieftain
In my experience 3D games are almost always more difficult to manage then 2D games. One of the great advantages of the current 2D look is that I can see everything I want without difficulty, for example in 3D you might not be able to see half of your armies at first because of a hill or whatever. If they are able to make a managable and clear 3D interface, then let them go ahead. Else, I just have my doubts.
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
I think he means that by the time Civ IV is released it will be 2006. Though I disagree, I think Christmas 2005 is most likely (about a year and a half left).Synthshadow said:
earthgate
Chieftain
size of maps is a vital factor... it ought to be a PLAYABLE otpion on a modern pc to play a WORLDMAP or it isnt really a CIV so my suggestion is a switch between tactical and strategic view...
Develpoment is improvement not commercialism.. 3d graphics is inherently invented to a first shooter perspective although it can be adapted....
think being the genreal placing ur regiemnts in a walley.. taking advanteges of terrain bonuses. rivers (patriotaic or not ) citizens and so on there are many factors to warfare. there are many factors to development. if civ 4 isnt able to make this factors into reality , they have not made a new game.. in fact they have followed a trend... ruling a nation or a civ or whatever u ppl feel is far more than moving stupid spearman around..
ill rather wait for the ultimate strategy game than see another mass produced crap being sold off in the shelves
Develpoment is improvement not commercialism.. 3d graphics is inherently invented to a first shooter perspective although it can be adapted....
think being the genreal placing ur regiemnts in a walley.. taking advanteges of terrain bonuses. rivers (patriotaic or not ) citizens and so on there are many factors to warfare. there are many factors to development. if civ 4 isnt able to make this factors into reality , they have not made a new game.. in fact they have followed a trend... ruling a nation or a civ or whatever u ppl feel is far more than moving stupid spearman around..
ill rather wait for the ultimate strategy game than see another mass produced crap being sold off in the shelves
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
I perfer a 2D with a 3D isometric view much like Civ2 and Civ3
earthgate
Chieftain
a switch of 2d and 3d is most advategous as i staed in earlier posts...
3d is only advantegous in tactical battle.. like rome total power.... what civ has is all that rome TP doesnt have.. on a stragetic factor.. however if u look at RTP asa scenario in CIV you have asomewhta deal... make it better.. bigger... and open the doors to the fans.. to improve
3d is only advantegous in tactical battle.. like rome total power.... what civ has is all that rome TP doesnt have.. on a stragetic factor.. however if u look at RTP asa scenario in CIV you have asomewhta deal... make it better.. bigger... and open the doors to the fans.. to improve
Wow, talk about reviving an old thread. 
Isn't 3D chiseled in stone the past year anyway? An interesting "expansion" would be to allow those who don't like 3D to shell out a few more bucks to replace the rendering with 2D. If the program is designed with modularity in mind, it could be a relatively easy switch -- but they'd have to charge enough to offset development costs.
Isn't 3D chiseled in stone the past year anyway? An interesting "expansion" would be to allow those who don't like 3D to shell out a few more bucks to replace the rendering with 2D. If the program is designed with modularity in mind, it could be a relatively easy switch -- but they'd have to charge enough to offset development costs.
I've seen far too many games go 3D with less than impressive results. The only way they can pull this off is to view the terrain from a fixed camera view (as 3D) and set the units to work like they do in Civ3. Considering the size of the units and (last I heard they wanted to use...) the multi-units, the result will look almost anime-like, kind of like Warcraft3 to war2.
The only other option is to keep all the units simple. The same detail as Civ3 units, only in true 3D format. Custom units could exceed that (and likely will, probably over detailed again), but the basic game units should be generalized due to their size.
The only other option is to keep all the units simple. The same detail as Civ3 units, only in true 3D format. Custom units could exceed that (and likely will, probably over detailed again), but the basic game units should be generalized due to their size.
earthgate
Chieftain
i kinda liked what was said now last.. still the switiching btween 2d and 3d window would proove a moreadvantoug solusios as to tactical and strategic moves... more realistic more potent.. and more work
Similar threads
- Poll
