Civ4 Catering to RTers?

[remconius]

@Raggamuffin. Just ask anyone who works in the computer gaming industry-like Warpstorm, for instance-and they will tell you the exact same thing: Graphics are almost always the last thing to be finished before a game's release, and this usually doesn't occur until the last 4-6 months of a game's development life.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

If this is the case then they are currently working on the graphics. I hope they are improving the general overview somewhat. In the screenshots there is a lot of "big" scenery and units are even bigger. Then there is all kinds of things being animated. I have the feeling it clutters too much. Maybe its a matter of getting used to it.

 

[doronron]

It's always a matter of getting used to it. Fans howled at "how bad" Civ3's graphics were back before it came out. They made the same basic arguments then, too, sacrificing gameplay for apparently disappointing graphics (which wasn't the case). Players got used to it. Now, you'll see people comparing the apparently "good" gameplay and graphics of Civ3 as a paragon of near perfection compared to what they think is coming.

 

[Darwin420]

World's not big enough for a lot of cities when you look at the screenshots. Less cities = sacrificing gameplay.

[RANT] Am I the only one who believes the world screenshots we've seen are from a SMALL or TINY map?? All that was said was the maps will be a bit smaller than their Civ3 counterparts.. why does everyone assume the maps will be Microscopically Miniscule?? [/RANT]

Okay... I feel better now.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Darwin, if it makes you feel any better, I just think there are people out there who aren't happy unless they are moaning about a game they have never even played (and barely seen, for that matter). I say, 'sure there are things about this game which make me a little nervous (like the lack of detail re:diplomacy), but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.'

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[warpstorm]

Therefore I wouldn't doubt that the graphics we will see in the final release will be miles better than the ones we have seen to date.

As late as we they are in the development cycle, some of the graphics shown are probably near final. I think that the final look will be quite similar to what we've seen so far.

Even if they aren't though, who cares??? -as long as the game plays well!!

I agree. If the gameplay shines, I won't even notice the graphics after a bit.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I agree that it is late in the development cycle, Warpstorm, but by the same token I doubt whether they have actually revealed any of their more recent graphics developments. i.e. I just have this feeling that what we saw from E3-and even the stuff from Gaming Horizon-are graphics from closer to the start of the year. As I said, though, that is just my gut feeling and-even if it proved wrong-it will be the gameplay that sells me! Truth be told, I wasn't particularly blown away by the graphics in Civ3 (though they were better than in Civ2), which is why I use Snoopy's graphics-and I am certain that kind of option will be available this time around too.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Darwin420]

I, for one, am excited about the 3D graphics - they might not be perfect, but I actually like them better than the Civ3 standard graphics (I do use Snoopy's, though). I also think the 3D graphics will provide a better 'in the game' feel. I'm a sucker like that, though. I like to see the worlds come alive!

@aussie lurker: I agree with you; I'm nervous about lack of info, too. Doubly agree that what we've seen for diplomacy has me a little nervous. But, I trust Firaxis, and I'm sure cIV will be a killer game!

 

[Janos]

I don't see a huge problem with the RTS issue. As far as i know, Firaxis are simply taking the best from the Civ series, building on that, and then including features more commonly seen in RTSes to better the gameplay and playability of Civ IV.

I think that the unit sizes in the screenshots are a bit stupid, and i really don't want to have a group of three collossi on every city of mine crowding all the landscape up. Hopefully there will be an option to scale them down a bit in-game. Alternatively, i'm not going to demand a scale-slider or new graphics for units until i've actually played it and seen them in action myself.

 

[popewiz]

I would think that scaling down the units sizes would be one of the easier things to mod if it ends up being an issue.

Also, in response to those who think that Civ IV will be on much smaller maps, consider the epic length game they are implementing. How is it possible for a game to take longer than those in Civ III unless the maps are at least of similar size?

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Personaly I don't give a $#!^.

With games as with food: If it's good, I play it (or eat it, as the case may be).

Some of my favorite games have been RTSs (tho none as good as Civ or SMAC)

 

[Carver]

@Janos and popewiz: One of the developers did state that unit sizes could be modded with a simple numerical value in the editor (in XML I think).

Otherwise, I think somewhat fewer cities and units may be a good idea to reduce tedium and create a deeper game where each city is more important and unique; and where there are more and more important choices about what infrastructure to build.

 

[Janos]

Ah yes, i read about that Carver - thank you for clarifying it. In that case i don't really have any issues graphically, although i'm sure there will be some things i dislike, but hey can't have everything!

 

[frekk]

I played a rise of nations demo and it sucked like crap. The combat was confusing and it was too fast paced.

It's not actually that confusing or fast paced after you've played a couple of games ... but it still sucks. Every game is pretty much the same thing, the graphics get a "butt ugly" rating from me, and there's just very very little to hold one's interest past a half dozen games or so. It's just a silly twist on the standard RTS format and not even truly novel, the idea of scattered bases connected by roads .... it was more or less done before in a very early RTS called "Enemy Nations" (which was much less ugly too).

 

[DoTheMath]

Actually, less citys = less micromanagement. It kind of gets rid of the thinking "the more citys I have, the better off I am."

Good. From the previews, cities themselves have an upkeep cost. This should get rid of ICS. CTP2 games have less cities, it makes the game go faster, and makes the game better!

 

[Urederra]

I am sure that a Civ IV huge map will hold more cities than a Civ III large map. (same % water mass in both). I bet on that. Any takers?

 

[henry k c]

It's not actually that confusing or fast paced after you've played a couple of games ... but it still sucks. Every game is pretty much the same thing, the graphics get a "butt ugly" rating from me, and there's just very very little to hold one's interest past a half dozen games or so. It's just a silly twist on the standard RTS format and not even truly novel, the idea of scattered bases connected by roads .... it was more or less done before in a very early RTS called "Enemy Nations" (which was much less ugly too).

The Rise of nations graphics were pretty good to me, it was the rules and design that angered me.

 

[tcjsavannah]

[RANT] Am I the only one who believes the world screenshots we've seen are from a SMALL or TINY map?? All that was said was the maps will be a bit smaller than their Civ3 counterparts.. why does everyone assume the maps will be Microscopically Miniscule?? [/RANT]

Okay... I feel better now.

It's the scale of the screenshots. And how much room cities take up of "continents" that look like islands. Think about what one screen of a pangea Standard map looks like.. then compare that to the screenshots of the entire world they've shown on the gameplay. At least in Pirates, you have two dimensions - the Caribbean map, and then it "zooms in" when you attack a city. If they're doing it all on one in Civ, no zooming in, it just.. looks.. small.

Trust me, I'll be happy if it isn't. I'm just not encouraged from what I've seen so far.

 

[Yusaku Jon III]

I'm in agreement about RoN having some good and bad aspects. While I liked the idea of a RTS version of a Civilization game, I've found that I really don't like the way the terrain maps were designed. I did like the idea of grouping units of different types together to play off of the others' strengths and weaknesses, though. I read somewhere that CivIV will be implementing a similar grouping method that'll replace the "Army" system used in earlier versions. So, while I don't think they'll ever make a Civ game in RTS, I have no problems with their adopting some of the graphic elements like zooming in or changing viewing angles.

Even so, if someone were to develop a world-building strategy game which combined the better elements of both types (Civ TBS with Total War RTS battle maps), I would...

 

[bman003]

Am I the only one who believes the world screenshots we've seen are from a SMALL or TINY map?? All that was said was the maps will be a bit smaller than their Civ3 counterparts.. why does everyone assume the maps will be Microscopically Miniscule??

I'm worried about map size because there is no evidence to the contrary. I guess it is my one fault. It's like people believe in god even though there is no evidence to support the idea. I just wish they'd give a grid size of the large maps, cause I like huge maps, and I like the idea of having to travel a LARGE world. So that's why I'm worried cause I don't have faith in Civ developers like people do with the church.

 

[Brian Mc]

Whew! You folks post fast.

Sub, comparing RoN to Civ is like comparing Tic-Tac-Toe to Risk. It's a game of instant gratification, requiring two fingers and atleast one eye. See Frek's post on the game. And am I the only one that thinkg micromanagement isn't a bad thing? You are supposed to be controlling a civilization from conception to the bitter end. The appeal for me has always been complete control. Does anyone ever use the governor options? And it really isn't that complicated, if you find it so, maybe RoN is better suited to you, just don't insist that Civ gets buggered up because of it. Not to mention, I find it rather funny to think of playing civilization with just a handful of cities (keeping in mind I don't have specifics on what a decrease means to the developers).

Civrules, thanks for the welcome. Notice the quotation makrs in "more fun". That's "more fun" to everyone other than the traditional civ fan (by that I mean someone who's been playing since Civ1). People that think Civ just doesn't have enough action and too much thinking. That's usually what pops to mind when I hear people say things like "increase playability".

Vbraun, you're right ofcourse, I can only base my opinions on what I have heard. However when the developers say things along the lines of increasing the amount of decision making, and basing the game around the multiplayer facet, that makes me nervous. Civ has always been a game about strategy and patience, you have to be into a game for the long haul.

Sure gaming might be like food. But imagine you have a favourite pizza place that you have been going to since the 90s. Best pizza in town... no in the country. Then after a couple of complaints the pizza place drastically changes the recipe and now, to you and the old patrons, the pizza sucks arse. No you don't have to eat there, but that doesn't make you any more happy that your favourite pizza no longer exists.

NOTE: There are some good things that I see and that I am excited about, specifically the new tech tree design and government "creation". Not that it matters because I doubt I'll be abel to get a new computer before the game comes out.