Civ3 screenshots & Info from PC GamePlay!

[Zaswady]

Whoa!

Just seen some Civ 3 screenshots over at PC Gameplay (www.pcgameplay.co.uk) in their news section.

Apaprently the magazine is running a feature on it. I'm going out to buy it now.

[This message has been edited by Thunderfall (edited April 28, 2001).]

 

[Håkan Eriksson]

Yes! Wath a nice screenshots!!! you can see the borders and all! Nice graphics!

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://w1.316.telia.com/~u31613053/sign.gif" border=0>

 

[Thunderfall]

Zaswady, Thanks for the news! <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif" border=0>

I like the screenshot, it's very realistic overall! <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif" border=0>

However, I think the graphics for irrigation effect is a bit ugly. The map would look bad if you irrgiate all those grassland and plain squares. I prefer the irrigation graphics in Civ2... <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/frown.gif" border=0>

I also think they over-use the yellowish green color in the terrain. It's not an exciting color to look at. I would prefer a brighter green color for grassland & forest, just like in Civ2.

Click on a thumbnail to see the screenshots directly:


<a href="http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3images/Civ3_1.jpg"><IMG SRC="http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3images/Civ3_1_small.jpg" border=0></a> <a href="http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3images/Civ3_2.jpg"><img src="http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3images/Civ3_2_small.jpg" border=0></a>

[This message has been edited by Thunderfall (edited April 26, 2001).]

 

[Mongol Horde]

Sheesh, I don't wanna be the first to say it but these graphics are not quite the quality that I expected. You're right TF that irrigation is awful. I am still not worried though why?

1. It's still early days
2. I still trust Sid
3. They never look as good as screenshots
4. Who cares about the graphics anyway?

 

[Thunderfall]

hey LeoWind, it seems I deleted your post accidentally. Can you repost it? Sorry about that...

 

[Leowind]

It figures, first time in the Civ III forum for a long time, and then you delete my post <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/cry.gif" border=0> <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>
I agreed with you, TF about the colors and the irrigation. I'm also not sure I like the way the roads look. I very much like seeing what each city is producing and I assume the number beside it relates to how much production has been done or needs to be completed.
What struck me, however, was that the river runs along the square *borderS* rather than through the squares like in Civ II. This will have major implications for trade, movement, and defense iF it is the case.

P.S. THUNDERFALL, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE REMEMBER DON'T DELETE MY POST. So did my first post get counted and now I'm a spamming double poster, or did I get cheated out of a post in my meager post-count <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>


[This message has been edited by Leowind (edited April 26, 2001).]

 

[Thunderfall]

lol, I'll be more careful in the future. <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/biggrin.gif" border=0>

I opened photoshop and changed the color balance of the first screenshot. The trees and grassland now look much brighter... <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif" border=0> You can compare the difference between the 2 screenshots by opening them in separate windows.
http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3images/Civ3_1tone1.jpg

Let me know what you think...

[This message has been edited by Thunderfall (edited April 26, 2001).]

 

[Markstar]

I also agree with Thunderfall, in addition to that I don't like the colors under the units. Makes it look much more artificial instead of giving you a "realistic" feeling. What do you guys think? I also don't like that they're copying the border-graphics from SMAC.
Plus, where is my population counter?
But maybe I'm just expecting too much...

 

[rouli]

I hope those over head titles will not make it to the final release, they look awful in my opinion. Other than that, reminds me too much of SMAC, and I can't say I have a good memory.

 

[Håkan Eriksson]

I think you are to querulous. Ok maybe the irrigation doesn't look the best. But here is some things that I think looks good:

1. The map. You can se that the is deeper wathers marked with darker blue.
2. The mountains and hills are at diferent size and looks way better than in civ 2.
3. The borders. They don't look to hard but yuo can see them.
4. The "main" window were you have your units and stuff are over the entier screen insted of one window.
5. You can see how much gold you get per turn right in the window.
6. you can se wath the cities are producing with oute haveing to look inside.
7. The natural resources looks way better than in civ 2.

Just to take some exampels.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://w1.316.telia.com/~u31613053/sign.gif" border=0>

 

[MrLeN]

Thunderfall, Re: "Pulling photoshop out"... you really need to get a life LOL

Nevertheless, although the buildings look too green, the rest of the picture is actually alot better <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif" border=0> Great "reconstruction" *hehe*

I too don't like the little round things under the units. I am hoping that it is just a blank spot where the "unit base" gifs will go or something.

I recon the roads look like they are floating too, and the irrigation is terrible.

On the other hand I agree with Mongol Horde, Who cares about graphics?

It is still too early to tell. Some of my favorite games have been equipped with lousy graphics (remember Adventure on the Atari 2600)?

Well, actually, I'm not saying It's lousy. I'm just saying there's some things that look a bit 'ordinary'. I thought Civ III woould be an absolute killer (for a strategy game) in the graphics dept, but oh well, you can't have your cake and eat it too I suppose.

I am 100% certain at this stage that Civ III will be better than Civ I and Civ II put together, rolled into one and/or multiplied tenfold <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif" border=0>


------------------
MrLeN

Link to ez0ne.com
Webmasters and Pagebuilders

[This message has been edited by MrLeN (edited April 26, 2001).]

 

[cyborgasm]

Very cool!! The thing that puzzles me is the second screenshot. It almost looks like a clip of an apollo wonder movie, but in the CGW magazine release, they said wonder movies were out. Any speculations?

 

[damunzy]

I don't particularly like the graphics in this picture. It reminds me too much of CTP2.
And Thunderfall, holly green Batman! Now the pic looks green
I'm sure that even if the graphics look this bad that the game will rock. In addition to that, the great modifiers on this site will make and post a graphics fix for it.

------------------
<FONT face="tahoma">
All rights reserved, all wrongs avenged. </FONT f>

 

[R]

I think the graphics is quite cool, the colors are nice and warm. But it's going take a little while to get used to the changes of course.

<IMG SRC="http://www.missionsos.org/urkraftkallan/civsignatur.gif" border=0>
...................................(R)

[This message has been edited by R (edited April 26, 2001).]

 

[animepornstar]

i´m not sure but aren´t the pics from the smac based prototype?

what is the smoking thing in the lower left corner anyway and what is the function of the heads?

the river looks bad too.

 

[SlowwHand]

I don't put a lot of stock in the screen shots.
Probably the best thing available, but I think the real deal will look better.

------------------
It's In The Way That You Use It

Tuatha De Danann Tribe
ICQ 51553293

 

[Loaf Warden]

Personally, I thought the city names were too hard to read quickly. I don't know whether anyone else had a problem with it, but my color vision isn't quite up to scratch, and to me there was not enough contrast to make the city names easy to read without straining.

This is in addition to my agreement with those who say the irrigation looks bad and the disliking of the color discs under the units. But those are more minor points for me; I can easily forgive a game for sub-par graphics if the game is fun. To me, graphics aren't very important when compared to gameplay, fun, re-play value, and, when appropriate, storyline.

Still, it would be nice if they fixed the city name thing before the game is released so I don't have to strain my eyes every time I play. . . .

 

[Prometheus]

well, the screenshot gets my vote overall. the icons for the special resources are nice, and the depth and richness are decent, although i do agree with tf that there's room for more richness and variety in the colors.

i have to disagree, though, with those who think the discs under the units is bad. for one thing, it helps alot to see what position a unit is in, which is a big help for newcomers to the game. in civ1, it was very easy to determine the position of a unit, but it was quite ambiguous in civ2. my guess is that they added the discs as a fix to that. also, the discs are a nice cue to identify the civ a unit belongs to.

[This message has been edited by Prometheus (edited April 26, 2001).]

 

[Zhukov]

Has it occured to you that the other screans hots (I forget what mag - a british one that someone scanned) looked A HELL OF A LOT BETTER that this?

I am guessing the game will look much more like those pretty pastelish artsy shots than he icony stiffy sticks of graphics that are there. Liek eveyrone else said - it isnt bad - but it sure ain't what vicious Sid worked me up towards.
Oh well - I do agree - its gameplay that gets me


------------------
"The enemy attacks, we retreat;
The enemy camps, we harass;
The enemy tires, we attack;
The enemy retreats, we pursue."
- Concepts of Guerrilla Warfare (by the People's Liberation Army of China)

 

[Hydey]

Hey I don't care what they look like, just seeing them means that this game is closer to release date

------------------