civ 3 players will not move on

[King Flevance]

I think there is a large difference in leaderhead style myself. I was never particularly entertained by any leaderheads in 3 or 4. I myself think Civ 2 had the best leaderheads to date in any civ game. (Once again proving newer is not always better.) The leaders felt "serious", dignified, and worthy adversaries. With Civ 3 they became that pesky sprite next door. And Civ 4 has taken it to a new level with the dialogue that seems to rather mock the charactors than portray them.

Civ 3 offered cartoon antics that seemed at aiming to throw a less serious tone to the game. But didn't go as far as to make a mockery of politics in a game centered around diplomacy. I would much prefer if some of the old atmosphere would come back into the game, and when I have time to do so, I plan on bringing it back into Civ 4.

And as rolo suggested I would prefer that they go with multi-layer terrain if they are going to stay 3-D. (Which they probably will.) But staying 3-D and not even using it to add in so much as 1 single game aspect based off of being 3-D is not only meaningless, it is also rediculous due to the sacrifices made in performance to the game.

 

[CyberChrist]

I myself think Civ 2 had the best leaderheads to date in any civ game. (Once again proving newer is not always better.)

Actually then all that proves is that YOU prefer Civ2 leaderheads over Civ III/cIV ones.

But I do agree with you that the 3D was a bad move considering they made hardly any use of it - as well as it being the core of the performance issues and most of the technical problems with cIV.

However, I seem to recall someone mentioning that cIV actually have all the required core functions build in to make full use of a 3D environment(there are height counters etc. for each plot), but that they just never got around to implementing it to any degree. I could have misunderstood what they meant - or plain remember wrong of course.

 

[King Flevance]

Actually then all that proves is that YOU prefer Civ2 leaderheads over Civ III/cIV ones.

Indeed. But by one person saying that an old model is better honestly in their opinion, it does prove that the importance of the release date of a game does not mean it is always better is my point in parenthesis.

But I do agree with you that the 3D was a bad move considering they made hardly any use of it - as well as it being the core of the performance issues and most of the technical problems with cIV.

However, I seem to recall someone mentioning that cIV actually have all the required core functions build in to make full use of a 3D environment(there are height counters etc. for each plot), but that they just never got around to implementing it to any degree. I could have misunderstood what they meant - or plain remember wrong of course.

I think I saw this same thing. I belive rolo mentioned it earlier in the thread. There was alot of things they "never got around to" on civ 4. I don't have the time to not only mod in this feature but to learn how to on top of it. If someone else manages to put it in, I would check it out. It would be awesome if someone made it into a mod component to boot.

 

[r_rolo1]

Yes, according with the developers of the SMAC mod there are height counters in CIv IV ( i won't give you the exact link, because that intel is buried somewhere in that thread, but you can search for it if you want... ).. they discuss the use of them for the Mod, but the project seems to be somewhat stalled ....

 

[gps]

Indeed. But by one person saying that an old model is better honestly in their opinion, it does prove that the importance of the release date of a game does not mean it is always better is my point in parenthesis.

Sorry to disagree, but one person having a different opinion does not prove anything. 'Beeing better' in this context is more a matter of taste than prove. So the only thing, that your posts (or many other in this thread) prove is, that there are people, who still prefer Civ III or Civ II or whatever. But that was not the point to prove - we allready know that.
I only wonder about the following: if one does not like the new leaderheads or the new game concepts or the new 3D environement or the way the game is modded - why don't these people play Civ III happily for the rest of their lives if it's so great??? Isn't that what they want? Why do those people come here and try to proove to others, who are perfectly happy and satisfied with what they got with CIV, what a stupid and cr*ppy game they are playing??? What's they point? Do you think, you can convert me to your religion ("Thou shalt not have another Civ next to CivIII...")?
You wont, and there's no need to. I already like Civ III but I also like CIV - and I play them both, whenever I want. Heck, I got the four greatest games of all times installed on my HD: Civ, Civ II, Civ III and CIV in all their variants ready to play whenever my time allows. Am I not a happy person?
And I also don't think, the 3d environment is a waste on a bonedry strategy game. I like all the details in the countryside. It gets me connected much more to ruling my kingdom, it's nice to actually see lighthouses along the coast, little huts, where tiles are worked by my population, gently bobbing fisherboats and fighter planes guarding the sky above my cities. It's relaxing to see my workers chopping wood or rivers flow towards the coast. Although there are hardware problems for some slower machines, I am happy, that the industry is constantly pushing hardware limits, because otherwise we'd still be playing black and white Pong in 300 x 200 pixels resolution. Cope with it or stick to the version you like better, where's the problem???
So sue me for posting here, because obviously I can't be a real Civ-Fanatic.

 

[King Flevance]

Sorry to disagree, but one person having a different opinion does not prove anything. 'Being better' in this context is more a matter of taste than prove.

Exactly my point. "Better" is a relative word. You can never say "This is better" as fact. I am actually using the same idea against the OP's position that newer means better.

So the only thing, that your posts (or many other in this thread) prove is, that there are people, who still prefer Civ III or Civ II or whatever. But that was not the point to prove - we allready know that.

Actually that was the point to prove. As this thread was started to suggest that anyone playing any version of Civ before 4 should "get with the time and accept that 4 is better".

I only wonder about the following: if one does not like the new leaderheads or the new game concepts or the new 3D environement or the way the game is modded - why don't these people play Civ III happily for the rest of their lives if it's so great???

We do. I actually play both. I am currently spending more time on 3 than 4. Next month, I may toy more with 4 than 3.

Why do those people come here and try to proove to others, who are perfectly happy and satisfied with what they got with CIV, what a stupid and cr*ppy game they are playing???

Actually this thread was started with the opposite idea. It was a Civ 4 player that was trying to convince Civ 3 players what a crappy game they are playing and others joining in.

What's they point? Do you think, you can convert me to your religion ("Thou shalt not have another Civ next to CivIII...")?

I like these discussions due to being able to gain new perspectives and learn new things about BOTH versions. I find Civ 3 and Civ 4 of equal quality. I like much more of the atmopshere and warfare in Civ 3. I like some of the concepts in Civ 4. But both have concepts (even in the areas I mentioned were my favorites) that are flawed. And IMO these types of threads are great for getting ideas for modding. Not necessarily robbing an exact idea off the forums but sometimes people say things that makes something click in my head and I try to see how I may implement that idea. As we are comparing the best of 3 vs. the best of 4. and the worst of 3 vs. the worst of 4. and all kinds of things in between. If looked at from a creative aspect, these threads can be entertaining.

And I also don't think, the 3d environment is a waste on a bonedry strategy game. I like all the details in the countryside. It gets me connected much more to ruling my kingdom, it's nice to actually see lighthouses along the coast, little huts, where tiles are worked by my population, gently bobbing fisherboats and fighter planes guarding the sky above my cities. It's relaxing to see my workers chopping wood or rivers flow towards the coast.

This can all be done in 2-D. I personally don't care about the worked tiles, thing but whatever trips your trigger I guess. I would rather have less of that and more time spent on actual gameplay concepts/balancing. As I can just go into the city screen and see what tiles are being worked.

Although there are hardware problems for some slower machines, I am happy, that the industry is constantly pushing hardware limits, because otherwise we'd still be playing black and white Pong in 300 x 200 pixels resolution. Cope with it or stick to the version you like better, where's the problem???

This is what we gain by 3-D. I see this itself as a problem. As to the bolded part, a friend of the family uses his computer for word prcessing, a couple spreadsheets, and playing online poker. He is convinced by industry that he needs a duo core processor and a couple other things. Things which he will never use. You cannot convince im he does not need this, he thinks he is missing something. But this hardware he will soon be buying will never be used.
Seems a little rediculous doesn't it? All that money paid out to never be utilized. This is what a 3-D game engine for Civ 4 is. And nothing more.

The "problem" is, I don't want to see them waste resources again on something that is honestly nothing. The 3-D in this game serves no purpose beyond these 2 things:

1) Slow down gameplay, limit scale of the game.
2) Allow Firaxis to say Civ has went 3-D (even though it effects nothing.)

So sue me for posting here, because obviously I can't be a real Civ-Fanatic

Now you're putting words in our mouths. But FWIW, I have seen Civ 4 fans call people that question CIv 4's design and intenions incapable of being real Civ-fanatics. But I have never seen it the other way around. Usually, in the opposite case it's a "fanboi".
I don't care either way though. To me your just another guy (or girl) who plays Civ.

 

[Civinator]

Well said, King Flevance.

And what would most supporters of Civ 4 say, if you get your Civ 4, but with a 2d-engine? Would really most of you get completely unhappy, if they could use thousands of existing Civ 3 high class units with Civ 4? If a lot more civers with average graphic utilities have a real chance to mod Civ graphics and may be will get interested in Civ 4? What would they say, if they could get masses of good looking individual leaderheads of Civ 3 and not only leaderheads where one must think "oh this king is Queen Victoria with a beard in her face?"

 

[gps]

Actually this thread was started with the opposite idea. It was a Civ 4 player that was trying to convince Civ 3 players what a crappy game they are playing and others joining in.

I know. And I allready said quite at the start: if he likes it, let him play.

This can all be done in 2-D.

Yes, but it hasn't been done.
And believe me: handing those details over to a standard software 3d engine (this Gambryo thing seems to be something like that) plus a powerfull 3d grafic card makes things much easier and cheaper to produce than hardcoding it in 2d.

Seems a little rediculous doesn't it? All that money paid out to never be utilized. This is what a 3-D game engine for Civ 4 is. And nothing more.

I have the same notion when I see people buying handies, mp3 players and stuff, that gets thrown away half a year later. Valuable raw materials beeing thrown away because the unchangeable battery is finished. So I can understand what you want to tell me.

But today each PC has a 3d card. Each game today demands direct x 9.0 at least, so there has to be a grafic card. Why not use it??? And I am also happy, direct x exists, because it enables me to play ten year old games (Need for Speed 3, The Patrician 2, stuff like that) without any problems. That wasn' possible with a ZX Spectrum or a C64 or a Amiga. I've been a 3d junkie since it exists. Doom in it's days rocked my gaming world like no other game before, although the gameplay is rubbish. But to be able to walk in a real 3d environement was indcredible. I also have hundreds of kills in Red Baron's Fokker Biplanes, spend many nights in mighty Sid's F19/F117 stealth simulators and loved Tomb Raider just for the beauty of it's levels. For me 3d rocks and makes all the difference. A matter of taste - but for me it's an important one.

Now you're putting words in our mouths.

I never said each and every word in my post is targeted at you and only at you.

 

[King Flevance]

And what would most supporters of Civ 4 say, if you get your Civ 4, but with a 2d-engine?

I think this is a great question.

Yes, but it hasn't been done.
And believe me: handing those details over to a standard software 3d engine (this Gambryo thing seems to be something like that) plus a powerfull 3d grafic card makes things much easier and cheaper to produce than hardcoding it in 2d.

But there is no reason why it shouldn't or couldn't be done. Except to alienate some of the fanbase. (Those who are not interested in 3-D graphics at the expense of gameplay)

****​

I will also add that Civ 4's graphics compared to the other games out in 3-D are rather poor. (I admit some things look good, but overall, they are not anything to brag about.) If I was a game reviewer I couldn't give Civ 4 anything better than an 8. Also, anything less than a 7. I would probably rate it around a 7.2 - 7.4 though. It cannot compare to some of the 3-D graphics available in other games. They are very basic to the extent that hills on Civ 3 look "better" and more "natural" and even more 3-D then the ones in 4. Two hills in Civ 3 look like a long oval hill. A hill that covers 2 tiles. On Civ 4, with it's "better" graphics, two hills look like a set of land boobs. Two humps that set next to one another. I admit it would be cool if you get seriously get a large hill (which would end up actually being a mountain) that spanned 48 tiles. Naturally, being a higher elevation in the center of those tiles. And how cool would it be to be able to utilize "high ground tactics"? Of course, this would be one hell of a brainstorm session to come up with the proper and balanced mechanics. But because it has never been done, or because this would be hard to do are both combined not enough reason to justify its worth to be worth never doing it.

But today each PC has a 3d card. Each game today demands direct x 9.0 at least, so there has to be a grafic card. Why not use it???

Because not everyone bought their computer today. My friends that I introduced to Civ 3 have no chance at running 4 on their computers. They just lost 4 sales. They do not have the money to put into upgrades they need for Civ 4 for at least another 6 months, provided nothing unexpected comes up. So it may be longer. They are losing money on 4 people I know alone because "3-D is kewl" is the marketing tactic for Civ 4.

Now that has to do with the target audience % using newer hardware. Lets ignore that part. See if it is still worth it regardless of that fact. Which I will restate the reasons from my above post.

Pros for using 3-D
- We can say we went 3-D with the series. Which will allow us to target a new audience, the FPS audience and people that are attracted to graphics. (Typically people that get bored easily playing a strategy game, and even more so if it is TBS instead of RTS.)

*To me that one reason seems a bit hollow.

Cons for using 3-D
- Anyone that has not recently purchased/upgraded their computer to run high end games (of which a small handful at best are strategy titles) will not be able to run it.
- Those that can run it, will have to work with smaller maps than previous versions to achieve a decent gameplay speed.
- Modding in new units/buildings (a large feature of the game) will be made much harder and time consuming. Effectively taking 3-4+ times as long to make a unit/building of the same quality.

For me the only "pro" means nothing. But I can se a lot of reasons why not to use it.

Doom in it's days rocked my gaming world like no other game before, although the gameplay is rubbish. But to be able to walk in a real 3d environement was indcredible. I also have hundreds of kills in Red Baron's Fokker Biplanes, spend many nights in mighty Sid's F19/F117 stealth simulators and loved Tomb Raider just for the beauty of it's levels. For me 3d rocks and makes all the difference. A matter of taste - but for me it's an important one.

OK Doom, I personally didn't like. I am not big on Massacre FPS's. I play FPS's like Ghost Recon, Call of Duty, and such the most. Halo I play too and I like it, but mostly for its multiplayer. I will admit it was cool with the 3-D world on Doom even though I didn't like the game I had to admit that it was a cool idea.

But now let's come back to Civ. All of these games you mention 3-D being important on, none are strategy games. You got Adventure/FPS and Flight Sims. Doom must have good graphics because Graphics and level design are like the TOP grades for FPS. Adventure game's top grades are usually on story and graphics. Flight simulators are graphics and player controls/interface. Strategy are graded on concepts, and warfare systems. Graphics are to strategy games what story is to FPS's. It is simply the thing you focus on least because that isn't the sole reason people play your game. Graphics are nice but in the end, they mean nothing.

I never said each and every word in my post is targeted at you and only at you.

That's why I said our mouths. I was just playing around at this point. I wouldn't doubt some Civ 4 fan was called a fanboi already in this thread since its on page 11.

 

[CyberChrist]

It just struck me that a lot of people saying they don't really care about the graphics in a Civ game, at the same time are using the graphics of their favourite version of Civ as an argument for why it is better.

 

[gps]

And what would most supporters of Civ 4 say, if you get your Civ 4, but with a 2d-engine? Would really most of you get completely unhappy, if they could use thousands of existing Civ 3 high class units with Civ 4?

Why would I need that? If I want to use all those 'high class units' I have Civ III...
Another question: Why has no one ever tried to program a 3d editor to create new custom 3d units and leader heads for CIV??? That was usually one of the first things that popped up for the racing games I used to play. NFS 3/4 and Grand Prix Legends are ten years old, and still people are creating new custom cars and even complete new racetracks with fan made(!!!) 3d editors.

 

[King Flevance]

It just struck me that a lot of people saying they don't really care about the graphics in a Civ game, at the same time are using the graphics of their favourite version of Civ as an argument for why it is better.

This is because we are saying that 3-D is not "better" than 2-D. Both have positives and negatives. We prefer the 2-D positives over the 3-D negatives. That is the supporting arguement behind the irony. The style of the graphics in 3 is what I prefer over 4's. The supporting arguement for 4 is 3-D is always superior to 2-D, because its 3-D.
Plus, I own games with better graphics then 4. I say graphics on Civ 4 are not important. Also, 3-D is worthless since they aren't using it. But that doesn't mean I never compare graphics on games.

Another question: Why has no one ever tried to program a 3d editor to create new custom 3d units and leader heads for CIV???

They have. There aren't that many even after years of the game coming out because every item made through modding takes much more time and skill then it did back in Civ 3. Most of the new units and leaderheads in Civ 4 are just reskins. Basically an african Julius Ceaser or something. Not many real new models at all. As that would take even much more time and skill. Also most units are reskins and such. Although, there are more units that are "original" than there are leaderheads. But even these are usually chop the head off that unit and the weapon from this one, merge them to this one and reskin. Alot of copy and paste stuff because it works, and saves alot of time. But not great quality. Although I enjoy alot of SeZereth's units. I know there are more talented graphic crafters out there but he is probably my favorite.

 

[gps]

But there is no reason why it shouldn't or couldn't be done. Except to alienate some of the fanbase. (Those who are not interested in 3-D graphics at the expense of gameplay)

Why do you always suppose people who love 3d graphics do that at the expense of gameplay??? 3d graphics and gameplay do not exclude each other. Civ IV is the living proof for a game with 3d graphics and deep layered gameplay.

I will also add that Civ 4's graphics compared to the other games out in 3-D are rather poor.

Maybe to enable players with less sophisticated hardware to play it as well??? Just a thought...

Because not everyone bought their computer today. My friends that I introduced to Civ 3 have no chance at running 4 on their computers. They just lost 4 sales.

I could not have played Civ III on the PC I used for playing Civ II. Or the one I played Civ I on for Civ II. That’s the way things are if you want to play up to date games. It has not much to do with the type of graphics a game uses. On my machine there are phases during end game, where Civ IV actually runs faster than Civ III. Yeah, I know, you’ll tell me that’s because of the dumped down gameplay. I say, that’s because my 3d graphic card takes care of all the display issues, so my main processor does not need to handle 2d graphics and has all it’s power for the gameplay.

- We can say we went 3-D with the series. Which will allow us to target a new audience, the FPS audience and people that are attracted to graphics. (Typically people that get bored easily playing a strategy game, and even more so if it is TBS instead of RTS.)

But now let's come back to Civ. All of these games you mention 3-D being important on, none are strategy games.

Strategy are graded on concepts, and warfare systems. Graphics are to strategy games what story is to FPS's. It is simply the thing you focus on least because that isn't the sole reason people play your game. Graphics are nice but in the end, they mean nothing.

Sorry, but that’s kind of b*llsh*t. 3d graphics cards today are what XGA was to VGA was to CGA was to black and white graphics. It’s just improved graphics to make things more beautiful, colourful, give it higher resolution and make it more realistic. I don’t know anyone who claims strategy games have to be in black and white or have to be in 300 x 200 or have to be dots and lines without any texture. If high res and colours and textures were not able to kill strategy gaming, I really don’t see any reason why 3d graphics should be the final nail to the coffin.
And about people getting bored and need 3d graphics to compensate: if a game sucks, 3d graphics wont save it. If a game’s great, why ruin it by using stone age presentation??? This game is about PLAYING, not about LOOKING like stone age.

 

[CyberChrist]

There aren't that many even after years of the game coming out because every item made through modding takes much more time and skill then it did back in Civ 3.

As I recall it then it also took a good deal of time before any good new graphic units/leaderheads started being made for Civ III back in the days - since it also required special 3D programs to make.

The step for unit/leaderhead graphics modding from Civ III to cIV is much smaller than it was from Civ2 to Civ III.

 

[Smidlee]

opps. dp.............

 

[Smidlee]

Well said, King Flevance.

And what would most supporters of Civ 4 say, if you get your Civ 4, but with a 2d-engine? Would really most of you get completely unhappy, if they could use thousands of existing Civ 3 high class units with Civ 4?

While civ3 graphics looks ok ( i have nothing against 2-D) yet civ3 graphic looks dated. So I can see new comers with up-to-date PC be turn off at a game that looks it could run on a 10 year old PC.. thus 2-D. I have read reviews on a few consoles game where it was clearly noted that the graphics look dated as if it could run on the Playstation (for example).
While I agree civ4 3-D could use some improvements (even a new engine) still going 3-D was a smart market move.
The first Galciv got hammered hard for having dated graphics. (the same with Galciv2 land battles, ugly) With Galciv2 they didn't make the same mistake by working on it's graphics early in development .

 

[Seven05]

The "problem" is, I don't want to see them waste resources again on something that is honestly nothing. The 3-D in this game serves no purpose beyond these 2 things:

1) Slow down gameplay, limit scale of the game.
2) Allow Firaxis to say Civ has went 3-D (even though it effects nothing.)

There is quite a bit more to it than that. For example, it isn't a terribly complicated task to say take the head of a warrior, the shield of a swordsman and the pike from a pikeman and combine them all to create a new spearman working on a single object rather than having to edit the entire set of animated sprite images. Ironic that many of the 2D sprite graphics used by CivIII are created first as 3D models, animated and then rendered with the resulting rendered animation creating the sprites to be used in the game.

The 3D terrain (which supports layers BTW) is also again considerably easier to customize than the previous 2D isometric tile graphics. Including new heightmaps for the hills, peaks and coasts. In addition to this you have the Lsystem for object placement on the 3D terrain making it very easy to have something like a road passing through a forrest without the raod being drawn over the trees or the trees hiding the road. In fact, you can use road models from one author and trees from another without needing either of them to change a thing. This LSystem also gives you far more variety than any pre-drawn tiles ever could, even with something as simple as a cluster of trees. The same can be said for virtually any terrain modification- say you like the mountains and oceans from Blue Marble but want to use your own grassland and plains and the vanila deserts, tundras and ice? No problem in Civ4 due to the fact that it uses a 3D mesh for the world and blends the textures over that mesh for you. It's not only easy to mix and match sets like that, it's also easy to add in completely new terrains. No manual blending required or transparency concerns to slow you down.

In general, while a 3D engine may require more 'work' on behalf of your PC it's considerably less work when it comes to creating art assets. So while you complain of wasted resources you have no idea how many resources (in manhours) they freed up. And while 3D graphics aren't used to their full capabilities in Civ IV, and likely never will by it's very nature, you could easily argue that the game itself doesn't require anything better than what we had in the original Civ. For that matter, why have any graphics at all? None of them are 'critical' to the game, nor are the sounds or soundtracks.

It's a big electronic sandbox for the mod community, if it were 2D it'd be an Etch-a-Sketch.

 

[King Flevance]

Why do you always suppose people who love 3d graphics do that at the expense of gameplay??? 3d graphics and gameplay do not exclude each other. Civ IV is the living proof for a game with 3d graphics and deep layered gameplay.

Probably due to the fact that of limited resources. With one of those resources being time. I suspect this does make a difference. I do not know about what is involves as far as graphics team vs. coding teams no. But Civ 4 has always felt as though it needed more time.
When I mod, I can accomplish alot more code rewriting (not editing - I mean making a whole new XML page from scratch. Then making a unit from scratch.

Maybe to enable players with less sophisticated hardware to play it as well??? Just a thought...

It's possible. But if they are aiming for that, why have trees sway back and forth? That makes no sense. Having hills and coastlines look more natural would make no difference in hardware performance, making trees sway do when you add in all those other neato animations that ideally serve minimal purpose. (Such as worked tiles.) I am talking about the quality of the art of the world is poor for a 3-D environment. Which can only be affected by polygon count really. But instead they created a very unentertaining visual environment if animations were removed. If you take out all the birds flying out of the trees, mine animations, windmills that turn, etc. and just look at the quality of the graphics, they are comparable to 3-D games that were coming out at the same time as Civ 3. Any newer 3-D game puts these graphics to shame. They are a sort of retro-3D style.

I could not have played Civ III on the PC I used for playing Civ II. Or the one I played Civ I on for Civ II. That’s the way things are if you want to play up to date games. It has not much to do with the type of graphics a game uses. On my machine there are phases during end game, where Civ IV actually runs faster than Civ III. Yeah, I know, you’ll tell me that’s because of the dumped down gameplay. I say, that’s because my 3d graphic card takes care of all the display issues, so my main processor does not need to handle 2d graphics and has all it’s power for the gameplay.

I know all about hardware "get with the times" stuff. But the difference is that Civ 3 could play on any Pentium I based system. Which obviously revolutionized computers much like duo cores soon will. So long as you had any Pentium based Computer that had been out for around 5 years. So most people had alrady upgraded. Duo cores haven't been out for that long and Civ 4 almost requires you have one. (Please note the "almost") But most importantly Civ 4 wants you to have PCI-E which is also very new technology. And this requires a new mobo to upgrade. So buy a new computer is the answer. In another year or two this will be the normal setup mostly. Much like Pentium I's already were when Civ 3 came out. But Civ 4 has been out for 2 years. Which means it was released very close to when this type of setup was not common household use. It had barely even started to move in that direction. Civ 3 is not the same thing as Civ 4's release even as true as your statement is.

Sorry, but that’s kind of b*llsh*t. 3d graphics cards today are what XGA was to VGA was to CGA was to black and white graphics. It’s just improved graphics to make things more beautiful, colourful, give it higher resolution and make it more realistic. I don’t know anyone who claims strategy games have to be in black and white or have to be in 300 x 200 or have to be dots and lines without any texture. If high res and colours and textures were not able to kill strategy gaming, I really don’t see any reason why 3d graphics should be the final nail to the coffin.

I feel like you are trying to tabloid me here. You are like running to extremes to make any kind of point on the purpose of 3D in Civ 4. I don't know who is claiming anything about graphics having to go back to 4bit or anything of the like. I am saying they jumped forward too soon without any good solid reasoning behind it. I am not saying strategy games should only be equivalent to C64 or anything of the like. I am not even saying that worse graphics make for a better game.

I am stating that going 3D did not help the Civ title in any meaningful way. Not even 1.
EDIT: Due to Seven05's comment there may be a couple systems like the Lsystem (whatever that stands for) that is currently hidden from me.

I am also parallel arguing I prefer Civ 3 graphic style over Civ 4's. The arguements are not tied together like you seem to keep wanting to do with them. Basically, I see more benefits that would have worked FOR Civ 4 by staying 2D at least one more time around. As jumping ahead this early benefited no one. Including the game.

And about people getting bored and need 3d graphics to compensate: if a game sucks, 3d graphics wont save it. If a game’s great, why ruin it by using stone age presentation??? This game is about PLAYING, not about LOOKING like stone age.

Once again you go to an extreme probably without knowing this time around. The people I was refering to here:

the FPS audience and people that are attracted to graphics. (Typically people that get bored easily playing a strategy game, and even more so if it is TBS instead of RTS.)

The 3D graphics they tried using to appeal to these people. Firaxis has already claimed they were aiming for a new target fanbase with 4. And they pretty much state that who they are targeting is the younger generation that seem to be more interested in FPS's. They tried to take a strategy game and "flair" it up to appeal to a new audience. Graphics are very (triple underline that) important to these people.

Poor gameplay may destroy a game and 3D won't save it. But mediocracy can be passed off as award winning in 3D. Look at Halo, WoW, and probably a couple others I can't think of right now.

P.S. 2D is hardly stone-age. It would be considered closer to renessaince.

@Seven05 The LSystem does sound interesting and eventually I will probably run across that. I am currently in the middle of retexturing the land in Civ 3 and am aware of some of the problems you discuss. As well, eventually I will end up retexturing new terrains into Civ 4 and will most definatley find some of these goodies.

For that matter, why have any graphics at all? None of them are 'critical' to the game, nor are the sounds or soundtracks.

But as gps pointed out, this would be game suicide in todays world. Another extreme. It helps no discussion to go from one extreme to the other in an all or nothing attempt.

 

[GoodGame]

Actually armies are mostly irrelevant due to the promotion system including the GG.

Siege weapons/bombardment is still not absolutely required to take a city, but it's the quickest way. Pillaging/blockading will starve a city/empire and make it easier to take down. A large prepatory stack of melee or first strike units can take down a city without siege weapons.

SoD's are mostly in check thanks to the promotion system and patches (BTS patches seem to have curbed the AI's passion for building SoD's). What is still weak about the stacks model of the whole civ series is that combat between stacks is still not truly simultaneous without modding. Til then, all stacking is guaranteed to be somewhate flaky.

Civ3 is basically a micro-manager's dream, and still appeals to those type of players. Civ3 Conquests had some of the most imaginative scenarios ever made, and it mostly took to BTS for Firaxis to come close to them again.
Civ3 had some awesome mods that vanilla Civ4. The jump to Civ4 required better specs than they advertised, but on the average computer today, it runs well.

Game design-wise Civ4 rocked Civ3.

The major Civ 3 war problems;

1. AI inability to use armies
2. AI inabilty to use artillery
3. Stacks of doom

How were these fixed in Civ 4?

1. Removed completely
2. Dumbed down and made essential for any non-Praet war
3. Worse than ever

Also, there is no way to eliminate WW in 4 if you choose to go on a never-ending rampage in a particular game. Also, because of the graphics requirements Firaxis made the game less... epic, because you own a small civilization with a small army or have your army go on strike and being unable to research at all.

 

[Dark Sheer]

Looks like this thread has been hijacked by those of us who are arguing on why 3D should or should not be used while the OP has long move along.

Anyway, I am one who support the use of 3D in latest games. I agree with those who said that a new PC today always come with better hardware and why not utilizing something that is already there? But at the same time I also agree with those who argue that if 3D is used just for the look then why not just stay with 2D. In fact, I don’t mind if there are no graphic at all if the gameplay is good! But of course, with a complex TBS like Civ it would be much easier to absorb the huge volume of data by looking at some graphics instead of just a whole table of raw datas. From what I have read from above, I see people mentioned about machines like ZX-Spectrum, C64, Amiga (which was actual a class above the rest in term of graphic capability in its days ). I am sure these people will remember a great software company that is call Infocom. It produces the best adventures ever that none even come close up to today! (Hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxy anyone? ) And those games had no graphic at all whatsoever eventhough by then there are already graphic adventure in the market like Sierra’s King Quest (so bite me, I am from the older generation ). That is the best proof that a good game does not need good graphic to support it.

So what gives with Civ’s 3D graphic? Someone said its easier to produce unit graphic in 3D and all Firaxis’ units were made in 3D first before being convert to 2D anyway. That is true, but does it really save time in making them? And I must once again stress that a good 2D art can give more depths that a crappy 3D model. And someone mentioned that it take a while for a decent unit to be out back in Civ3 days. If I remember correctly, I think within a month or 2 after the game came out we already knew about how the graphic for unit works (thanks to the hardwork of some board members and the help of Dan Magaha from Firaxis  ) and about a month later I had already posted my Perry class cruiser on this board. (and I am no 3D graphic artist either ) And of course with great talent like Snoopy we soon have a completely new tile set look many many times better than what was originally shipped with the package. (which, btw I think is more beautiful than the 3D ones in Civ4 ). And I can’t agree better with the one who says hills in Civ4 looks like land boobs. I think that is because it is an unfinished job. I believe originally whoever work on the project figures that since it is 3D it should support layers so the basic core codes were build along those line. However, due to reason unknown to us, this was not being implemented by those who finally code the map engine and thus we ended up with mountains and hills that do not link. Chains of hill and mountain definitely look better in Civ3 than Civ4 because they actually link up properly.

I believe our argument here is not whether 3D is better than 2D. It is not on hardware issue either because frankly, 3D graphic in Civ4 should not be that demanding on hardware anyway. (unless, of course, the programmers did some lousy work made the program unnecessarily large and bulky and thus take up unnecessary processing power ). What we want to see is that Firaxis make real use of the 3D capability of today’s PC and not just use 3D for the shake of 3D. Take a look at games created by one of the greatest Jap company, Koei. Some of their game series had already reached the 12th installment and also moved from 2D to 3D somewhere along the line. For those who are not familiar with Koei, it is the company who produces the ever popular series like Romance of The Three Kingdom and Nobunaga’s Ambitions. All their past games were TBS, which is the reason why I like to compare them with Civ. In fact, I believe Koei might have stolen some ideas from Civ2 (like tile development outside of cities, trade caravans etc ) cause those games that they produced backed in 1998/9 really gives a Civ like feel (Nobu6, Genghis Khan 4 etc). However, each of the new installment is one hell of an improvement over the last one. And that is in every single department, graphic, interface, AI, concept. Look at the 3D for Nobu12 (which is basically the same engine from Nobu11 which was a 2003 game by the way ). You can zoom in and out with the roll of the mouse wheel and rotate the whole map on the fly by just holding down a mouse button. And of course you can tilt the angle of the camera to your liking. And yeah, the map is animated of course. And of course height is taken into consideration when resolving battles (height were already taken into consideration back in Nobu6 days, not mention things like flanking, ambush etc  ) So, if it can be done by a Jap company, why not Firaxis? Really, when I first heard about Civ4 goes 3D and after seeing a little preview I had great hope on the 3D landscape. But of course it was one huge disappointment when the actual game came out. Even 3D back in Alpha Centuries was better implemented.