AI or 3D Engine

[Verowin]

I voted other, because I want both. I think the 3D picture posted below looks good.

 

[dh_epic]

Yeah, I'm familiar with Gamebryo. They used it for Freedom Force. I've actually done a lot of research on 3D engines at the company where I work. In the end, we decided to adapt OGRE for our purposes. I digress, though.

Glad you could confirm the 3D Engine is under way. It's not as contraversial or limiting an investment as people think, and still allows them to make bigger gameplay decisions.

 

[Mewtarthio]

I'm only concered about how it will affect custom-designed units.

 

[warpstorm]

For those who made their custom units in standard 3d packages it will be even easier as they won't have to render it to a flc and clean it up. Those who used 2d packages will have something to learn. FWIW, both Firaxis and BreakAway made their units in 3D then rendered them to 2D frames of animation. This would have let them and us skip a step.

 

[troytheface]

that graphic posted looks pretty good to me, the clouds are a nice touch. maybe "pirates" will influence them in their reworking of the naval situation, where the naval scene is just as important as land.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Well, unfortunately, I believe more man hours will go into unit shadows than AI because of the perception that eye candy might sell millions.

Well, considering most work done on each of these is done by different people, I really don't think this is a fair criticism. 3D, when done properly, can save time to do the same exact things compared to how things were done in the past with 2D. Plus, as long as you have good artists, the graphics look a lot better to boot (in addition to other things like rotation, zooming, etc.).

Originally I was skeptical about CIV being in 3D, but I have confidence in Firaxis to do 3D right and in a way that does justice to a great game series.

 

[warpstorm]

Trip birings up a good point, a 3D graphics specialist is not going to be coding AI or vice versa.

BTW, the Gamebryo engine already includes code for shadows that Firaxis could use unchanged if they wanted to. They already paid for it, they may as well use it.

 

[eg577]

Too many a game have I bought and then thought "Yep, they pushed the new graphical element as the major selling point and the actual gameplay ends up lacking." I hope when previews of civ4 come out the reaction is "the new featues sound great" and not "the 3d looks great".

 

[masterofdragons]

Realistically, I think both could and should happen. AI should be smarter, not just cheat more on higher difficulty. A 3D engine would be awesome especially if battles could be incorporated in a 3D, quasi real-time fashion. Can you imagine a "unit" of hoplite soldier encountering another say Archer "unit" The cameras can fly (zoom) in when battle begins and as the perspective gets 100x closer the single unit becomes a division of 100 soldiers. The fighting is rendered in 3D with archers loosing arrows, the hoplites weilding shields and polearms, and blood flowing everywhere! Combat system can be improved to give more strategic maneuvering during combat, but is not a neccessity - the old system can be used, just rendered in a 3D combat sequence.

 

[Dida]

The 3D map might add a lot to the gameplay, I agree with that.
But it will also make the game much more demanding. Imagine running the game on a 3D huge map.
No matter how many new features they add in, w/o a good AI it will still be a piece of ****.

 

[TheDarkPhantom]

Agreed with Dida. One of the fundamental rules of programming and game design is don't give a game something just for the hell of it. Though, Masterofdragons and Warpstorm, you may love the idea of beutifully rendered graphics, and every battle zooming in to see the units fight each other in a combat sequence, the vast majority of the Civ community doesn't. Civ is a purely driven gameplay game...the graphics add an aesthetic touch, but there is no need for Civ to go 3D, despite what Warpstorm says, the vast majority of the TBS Empire-management games are not 3D, only illusion-3D, like Civ.

Obviously better graphics are a great thing, but a whole 3D engine is going to eat through processor power and majorly beef up the system requirements and lag game speed and for what? Civ games have no need of a 3D engine...the pirates picture may look nice and give you a thrill thinking of Civ like that, but for me personally, and most of the Civ community, we don't want Civ to look like that. I do disagree totally with the view that a game cannot have improved graphics AND improved gameplay, but I see no reason to give Civ a 3D engine when it is patently a 2D strategy game, when all its going to do is slow down gameplay and the actual running speed of the game itself. Better graphics is great, a more stylistic interface is great, but I really feel a 3D engine is a waste of time and energy when the vast majority of people have no wish to see cutscenes of bombers blowing up cities, or little battles every single time two units fight, or the ability to rotate round your warriors etc. Everything in the Civ3 map is representative, the whole graphics syetm is representative. A 3D engine will not be better for the game.

 

[warpstorm]

It's kind of a moot argument as Firaxis has said (publicly at the Game Developer's Conference, quite a few months ago, now) that they are going to make Civ4 a 3D game. It would have to be well underway by now (especially if they pillaged code from Pirates! to make their new engine).

 

[dh_epic]

I do think that 3D will add a lot of good gameplay in of itself -- you can actually model flatness of land, and various levels of elevation... you can literally have entire sections of a continent surrounded and protected by mountains, like India, instead of a few mountain tiles. You could potentially raise and lower land given the time and resources, and even pull land out of the water in a logical way.

Still, the only thing that would prevent them from doing actual gameplay features wouldn't be the programming effort ... the 3D programmers are usually different from the gameplay programmers, or at least the AI programmers.

It would all be a question of whether they really believed it was enough. If they looked at the spec and said "yeah! look at what they're getting! They're getting 2 new gameplay features, and a HUUUUUGE 3D overhaul. I think that's enough."

 

[Verowin]

I think you would get a better insight with a 4th option in the pole:
"I want better A1 and a 3D engine."

And by Nov 2005 I will have a new computer, that can handle the CIV4 easily.

 

[eg577]

Then everyone would vote for the 4th option.

 

[Me-262]

Better AI, even on low levels or high levels you can walk over them.You can do what I do
Tear them up.War can be fun.

Nukes are good if there not used against you

 

[sir_schwick]

I understand the arguments for good looking 3D maps, but there is something vintage and good looking about the 2D graphics that Civ 3 had. They were attractive and ran decently fast on my computer.

I understand the engine is being implemented, I just would have preferred the AI bumped up many many notches.

 

[Black_Hole]

better 3d engine

 

[sealman]

The poll is almost pointless since it already stated that civ would be in 3D. However, if it was my choice to have one or the other, I would rather have the better AI. But I think that we will have both. Maybe not the best AI available, but one that is better than Civ3

 

[eg577]

I think the poll is pretty clear, which would *you* rather have. Firaxis has already decided it wants 3D, and there is zero indication that is also wants to substainsially improve the AI. Based off this poll it seems we the consumers care FAR more about the AI. Yet I don't ever see Firaxis going all "civ4 will have a great AI!" as much as they have already said "civ4 will have 3D graphics!".