Am I the only person who is mad?

[Colonel]

The point the first poster made about how an empire has to few cities, for alot of the time period of man, empires consisted of a few major cities and a majority of people living in the country, also whineing about it doesnt make any sense as of yet, when they put out a demo in a few months, then you can whine.

 

[Bans]

Too high to read thru all the posts right now...BUT was I the only one who heard that dude from firaxis say that the game would include options to play it like the civ3 graphics and even include the old civ1 graphics if you wanted????
Now I like the boardgame feel the civ games had so far actually the civ1 graphics with a little tweak here and there would make it perfect for me... No more right clicking to see terrain info, no more pinching to see what the ****s actaully comming in that stack of death and so on...

Graphics are real nice but I'd like to keep the game board gamish... yeah.

 

[Dogzilla]

I don't like the terrain graphics and especially the unit graphics.
Units on an overland continent map should SYMBOLIC, meaning simple. The units are enormous and they clutter the map. The overland buildings and wonders add to the clutter, giving an almost Age of Wonders effect (that's bad).
The gameplay changes, from what I've read and heard, I think for the most part are excellent.

 

[MeteorPunch]

Too high to read thru all the posts right now...BUT was I the only one who heard that dude from firaxis say that the game would include options to play it like the civ3 graphics and even include the old civ1 graphics if you wanted????
Now I like the boardgame feel the civ games had so far actually the civ1 graphics with a little tweak here and there would make it perfect for me... No more right clicking to see terrain info, no more pinching to see what the ****s actaully comming in that stack of death and so on...

Graphics are real nice but I'd like to keep the game board gamish... yeah.

he was referring to the vantagepoint of civ 1. Civ 1 had a straight topdown view of squares, not diagonal (whatever) that Civ 2 & 3 had.

 

[mdm]

The only point on which I agree is the city point. I see the labels, but I can't tell where the cities are. If anything the cities are the things that should be gigantic... after all, civilization = city, both in game and pretty much in the basic definition of civilization.

 

[Bungus]

Is civ 4 including flavor units? Will I have to play with white zulus again?

 

[StavrosMelb]

Firaxis, I demand an apology for making me wait for several years for CivIV and come up with a piss-poor looking game. You have betrayed me, you have betrayed the modding community, and you betrayed yourselves.

Firaxis are making the game for EVERYONE, not just for YOU. If YOU don't like the game, tough luck. I happen to love the graphics, fair enough you believe the game may be cartoonish, I agree with that, but to expect Firaxis to apologize? Are you kidding me? If anything, Firaxis should be demanding YOU thank THEM for all the hours you spent playing their other timeless games.

How pathetic of a comment, I used to think all the people on this forum were of a certain intelligence but really, this has lowered the standards for everyone.

 

[Notech]

3) City tiles look rediculous, and how come in all the screenshots/videos there are too few and too spread apart. It seems to me like a whole nation has a total of 3 cities.

The demo is obviously in the early stages of the game: just a few cities/empire and primitive units. There will be just as many cities as you choose, and the AI will probably also build many cities.

The landmass ratio in the demo seems a bit low, but that might just be Soren's preference.

The reason for so much of the globe being visible this early in the demo game is that showing the global view in the demo would be useless if most of it is black.

Quote:
Bans
...BUT was I the only one who heard that dude from firaxis say that the game would include options to play it like the civ3 graphics and even include the old civ1 graphics if you wanted????

MeteorPunch
he was referring to the vantagepoint of civ 1. Civ 1 had a straight topdown view of squares, not diagonal (whatever) that Civ 2 & 3 had.

To clarify this: it's all about view angle. In CIV1, CIV2 and CIV3, it's fixed by the way the graphics engine is built. In CIV4, it can be zoomed, panned and scrolled as you like. This means that you can find the view angle best suited for the present task, and then change it whenever and however you want.

The different views from the previous games will not be options, it's just a matter of scrolling around and finding them....

 

[ThePrankMonkey]

i like the terrain in the screenshots. it reminds me of civ III. i think it looks a little smoother and more vibrant. the units will take some getting use to (might mod the game to use single units instead) but i dont really see a problem with what i see. i think they're making an effort to add as many features as possible that have been thrown at them from all the civ fans as well as detractors and i think they're doing a fine job.

if graphics are an issue, mod them or wait till someone comes out with a mod pack or request a mod pack or a mod in general. or simply dont buy the game. i think the game should be given a fair shot at least and played before passing judgement. i have some reservations about this game however i will not let them effect until i play it then i will as objectively as possible review the game on its own merits or lack there of and lets others know what i think about it.

but getting angry over a game? thats not worth getting mad over, upset? let down? disappointed? ok that seems more reasonable but at least give it a chance and play it first. if you dont like it, sell me the game.

 

[Spd79]

There's is one other big problem as i see it. What's with up the promotions. Is every single promotion for every single unit. How is that going to work?

Maybe in the beginning of the game when i have like 10 warriors it could be usefull. What if i have 300 tanks Did i not read it correctly?

Also is there any info on how you can attack with multiple units at the same time? stacks?

 

[Jimmyh]

Firaxis actually don't have 6-7 months left to do work....it's more like 3-4 months of actual work time.

If the game is to come out on the 1st november...that is just over 5 months.

Most companies finish the final master version any were between 1 week and 1 month before the release date.

Beta is probably at the end of september, which would leave some of october to fix class a bug, crashes etc.

Alpha is probably at the end of august, and alpha is usually content lock down...ie no more new features.

Don't expect any thing to change now, apart from small changes to graphics, interface changes etc, to change game play features now or even replace the leader heads would be madness....as u see it now is probably as u will see it in the shops...

This is from my experience in the games industry.

Jimmy.

 

[whereagles]

Civ 4 is not a patch of Civ 3. It's a whole new game, which you may like or not.

But here's the good news: you don't HAVE to buy it

 

[Drakan]

Demand an apology ?

Why aren't you patient enough to wait for the final version in November. The game isn't even out yet, for goodness sake ...

 

[AndrewN]

Not posted here for ages, but this thread needs a reply just to make the developers feel they are doing a good job (assuming they even bother reading)

1) I disagree, I like the look of the terrain, it dosen't look that much different from civ3

2) I can explain how much I disagree with this. I happen to like multi units ( I have long since downloaded Krytens mod (ps thanks Kryten ) and I use them all the time) I like the current look

3) Don't you build your own cities in civ? You can build cities closer together if you want.

4) Odd complaint, but still I like the look of them, The 3D effect looks well done.

5) Nope. From the video I had problems identifying them. The civ3 ones were very hard to spot sometimes (esp in forest or jungle). These look better.

6) Too few civs etc? Have you never heard of modding? Plus the improvements and wonders seem to have increased in number from civ3, the units have been changed sinficantly with the use of promotions and 18 civs seems more than enough to me. as for only 24 leaders, the time to get all the leader heads and everything else is significant. You try it.

As everybody else has said, try the game before you attack it, and why should anyone appologise to you for not living up to your expectations, especially as they have probably never talked to you.

BTW, are you the same person as "Simon Cowell" who frequents the Heroes of Might and Magic IV forums with a very similar list of complaints about that game?

 

[sgrig]

1) Terrain looks to generic and ugly.. it's too large, there is one mountain per mountain tile, I just think the terrain is absolutely non-realistic. Terrain is also too few and too square. Those continents look absolutely terrible.
2) Units are too large and how they have 3 soldiers is completely moronic. I never ever cared much for multi-units because they tend to clutter your map.
3) City tiles look rediculous, and how come in all the screenshots/videos there are too few and too spread apart. It seems to me like a whole nation has a total of 3 cities. I wish they would return to the CivIII, one city per tile look.
4) Leaderheads are too cartooney.. c'mon Gandhi's head is huge. CivIII most definantly had better looking leaderheads.
5) National borders are too colorful and distracting, CivIII's were much much better because they were more defined.
6) There are too few civs, unit types, wonders, and improvements. Also, how come they couldn't have 2 leaderheads for every civilization instead of 2 for only a few.. I really don't think that's quite fair.

1)Terrain looks alright too me
2) I agree with you here. Units are too big and I don't multi-units. I hope there is an option to have single units with a health bar, rather than multi units. All of this makes the screen too cluttered.
3)I actually that the cities are spread over a bigger area.
4)Don't mind this.
5)Don't mind this.
6)Not really a problem because Civ4 will give extensive modding capapabilities to players, so there will be lots of fan-made content, which will definitely increase the number of everything. I don't really care about the number of leaderheads.

 

[toft]

Who gives a f*** about graphics... its all gameplay!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Its funny, but most of my 'problems' with this game are just minor 'quibbles'-i.e. things I had imagined them doing a certain way, but where they have gone in a different direction-this especially applies to the religion model. The thing about minor quibbles, though, is that as I get used to them, they don't seem like a big deal anymore (i.e. I can DEAL with them, quite easily). Which leaves me only with one MAIN complaint, which is what elements of the game should be Unit Based, and which should be strategic. Hopefully, though, they will deal with these matters either before the games release-or in one of their future expansions (Fingers Crossed !)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Stilgar08]

Here are some reasons why I absolutely loathe CivIV:
1) Terrain looks to generic and ugly.. it's too large, there is one mountain per mountain tile, I just think the terrain is absolutely non-realistic. Terrain is also too few and too square. Those continents look absolutely terrible.
2) Units are too large and how they have 3 soldiers is completely moronic. I never ever cared much for multi-units because they tend to clutter your map.
3) City tiles look rediculous, and how come in all the screenshots/videos there are too few and too spread apart. It seems to me like a whole nation has a total of 3 cities. I wish they would return to the CivIII, one city per tile look.
4) Leaderheads are too cartooney.. c'mon Gandhi's head is huge. CivIII most definantly had better looking leaderheads.
5) National borders are too colorful and distracting, CivIII's were much much better because they were more defined.
6) There are too few civs, unit types, wonders, and improvements. Also, how come they couldn't have 2 leaderheads for every civilization instead of 2 for only a few.. I really don't think that's quite fair

First of All, Mobilize: Gameplay! Ever heard of it? Important point to some games. This is where cIV has to be measured on and of what I've heard so far the improvements will make playing absolutely more worthwhile (although not everything might be perfect, but nothing is!)

But since you were up in arms against the graphics:

Did you PLAY civ3 or just argue about cIV? What I've seen is a quantum leap concerning graphics, whether you like the style or not! Style is a question of taste, so not really argueable (sp.?). BTW, I like the style! . It is a game. That induces: "for fun"! Think about it...
If they manage to enable functionalities to secure that you not only have WYSIWYG but the possibilities to see every (strategic or tactical ) important aspect of the game, e.g. by the way you can disable/enable information shown on the world-map as shown in the video, everything will be fine.

Now concerning your "big-points":
1. Terrain will be the first thing to be modded anyway! You may argue that cIV should be in stores without any need for modding, but it's all about taste, right?? Personally, except for the mountains , I like the terrain.
2. Having seen the units in motion I feel they're fine, even concerning size! Taste: YOU never ever cared about multi-units...
3. This is just because it has been early in the game and you are ZOOMED in! Cities are not that far apart. And, as other people already stated: YOU build the cities, so just do it as you please!
4. Leaderheads have to be abstracted in order to make it "fun" and not insulting and to point out, that it's all a game! You are not playing against Maggie Thatcher herself but against a cartoonized, abstracted version of hers (BTW, it would be fun to have her as British leader - won't happen though ). I like them and will laugh my §$%* off, when Louis XIV will reject my offers in his snobbish way . This might go away after I've seen it 2,000 times, but WTH. I like them! Other opinion: Go, mod or wait for those who can... (an art I admire since I've no idea how to do it! )
5. disagree - they look good
6. EXPANSIONs?!? MOD's?!? No problem there!

I wish CivIV was more realistic looking.

I'm not the kind of guy who needs realistic looks in games. They have to "look" good! No offense here, but personally I think, if you want to see reality go to a bus-stop and watch the people waiting there. That's reality...

If it's not your piece of cake just leave it on the table and don't eat it. Other pro's for that already mentioned, especially the early stage the game is in, even if it's only 3-4 months left to work on: - pre-alpha-version!

Finally a friendly advice:
Relax! It's only a game! And maybe you should adjust you priorities...

Cheers, Stilgar

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

I really fail to see any reasoning behind your complaints. The graphics aren't completed, and the size of something...I mean, THAT is the benefit of a 3D engine. Not to be able to rotate a map. In a 3D environment, nothing has a fixed size.

The border colors great deal. Could be modded in Civ3 already.

I don't understand the 26 leaders as well; but, a wild guess: Maybe the animations of more leaders would have exceeded the magical 700MB of one CD? So they sticked to the must-haves?
Don't forget, for Civ3 animated leaderheads needed more space than anything else...

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

Apologise? For what? For having a different opinion to you?

Firstly, I think they have most certainly NOT betrayed the modding community! They are delivering a game that will let you mod basically anything you like.

I like the look of the terrain (although the units are a bit iffy), but what's important to me is GAME PLAY.

If your only beef is the graphics, then there is always PS2 or Xbox.

Precisely, I am choosing to refrain from "judging this book by its cover". I like to try the product before I make my conclusions.