2D or 3D?

[CurtSibling]

I reckon CIV4 will be like Pirates II, in terms of graphics.

And that makes me drool!

 

[sourboy]

I haven't played Pirates, but considering the size of the units (especially considering that multi-units are now the norm, thus each unit is smaller yet) - how much detail can you possibly get into them? The sad part is 'lots' - meaning they could end up over-done like warcraft3's were. Hopefully the 3D remains primarily for the landscape, thus gameplay, and not for the units themselves. Screenshots seem to confirm this initially, though as I said - doesn't look much different from Civ3 units.

After having been a huge Orion fan, and fearing a fall during their progression - which ended up happening, I'm scared of a repeat with civ4.

 

[earthgate]

yeah Orion went to much in one direction. toward strategy, and forgot that people have to sit and watch it for weeks.. its important to balance the gameplay. however i havent played pirates...the name scares me .. and ive seen screenshots of warcraft and it scares me too..im not going to spend weeks staring at troops looking awfully kool if they have no real strategy behind them.. except monster hunting their enemies.. .. then i could just as well stick to civ 3 conquest giving the fact of the higher cpus and memory of newer machines i guess it will load world maps at reasoable pace..

 

[JG99_Korab]

IT probably will be similar to empire earth II but not real time

 

[dexters]

The question is premature and too late all at once. It is premature because people haven't even seen enough of the game to make a good judgement of how it will work and it is too late because we all know it will use a 3-D engine.

You'll have people voting for 2-D option for the wrong reasons, mainly 1) they know their machine is creaking and doesn't want CIV to be the game to make them upgrade 2) attachments to the isometric view making people vote conservatively just because...

On the 3-D front, there may 1) inflated expectations of really good 3-D graphics which will probably not be met 2) the wrong ideas about how 3-D will be used leading to inflated expectations on implementation.

If push comes to shove, having the problems I just stated in mind, I'd go with 3-D, mainly because geometry is much more flexible form of art asset than the .flc and bitmap files of earlier Civ games. Flexibility allows for more fine tuning, and generally more content in the art department.

 

[Cilpot]

I'd prefer if they used researches to improve performances on big maps. Civ3 is already too demanding on modern computers.. I want to play huge maps until the modern age!

If 3D will make the game even slower, I'll probably never get into civIV. So, 2D for me thanks.

 

[josephstalin]

3D! Technologies should progress. For me adds more reality. But would not mind 2D.

 

[th0mas]

I havn't read through all the posts so apologies if this has already been mentioned

Personally I prefered the 2D Civ1 view, and from what I saw on the E3 video you can view CIV4 in true 3D and in a 2D birds eye view as well...

.... OTOH it will be the AI and complex background processing of the AI decisions etc which will hit your machine's performance not the graphics!

 

[Akka]

The world is in 3D, I'm used to it, I've no problem of adaptation toward it, I even feel more comfortable with it.
I also don't see why a 2D game would be better.

So 3D all the way.

 

[HAND]

2d isometric view is what im used to.. maybe a 3d view like SMAC that you could change the perspective on. I'll probably go for 3D in the end... and have a nostalgic play of Civ3 now and again.

 

[Carver]

In a staight comparison there is no contest. 3D is better than 2D - the animations and the way the screen comes alive is great. Spinning the screen is cool. Don't you remember battles in Civ3 where you can't see the hit points coming off the enemy unit due to obstructions? Well no more in C4. Also, everyone can find their own perfect viewing angle: overhead, at an angle, close in, far out etc.

If you computer can't handle it then buy a new one - You deserve it!

(This message brought to you by the HP/eMachines/Sony/Dell marketing consortioum.)

 

[Xen]

3D

 

[alco75]

As has been mentioned numerous times before, the system requirements for Civ4 are tame. Something like an ATI Radeon 9600 Pro will probably do the job just fine (as even DOOM3 is playable on that card albeit without shadows) and they cost peanuts second hand - I sold mine a few months ago for £40.

Yes, there are some exceedingly ugly 3D games, but c'mon, we've all seen the screenshots and videos by now, and Civ4 is obviously not one of those games. I cannot believe this poll is as close as it is. 3D >> 2D, end of.

 

[Quentin]

Yes, there are some exceedingly ugly 3D games, but c'mon, we've all seen the screenshots and videos by now, and Civ4 is obviously not one of those games. I cannot believe this poll is as close as it is. 3D >> 2D, end of.

This poll was started last year . Far more people are probably in favour of 3D now. I think it's time for another poll.

You gotta love the dancing legion

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

3D, it looks so much better.

 

[Janos]

I haven't played Pirates, but considering the size of the units (especially considering that multi-units are now the norm, thus each unit is smaller yet) - how much detail can you possibly get into them? The sad part is 'lots' - meaning they could end up over-done like warcraft3's were.

Warcraft 3's were great! Playing DoTA custom scenario with all the heroes is so much fun simply for looking at the heroes all battling it out. Great look and animations... if CivIV units are to look anything like that then i'd be thrilled.