Synergy67
Warlord
Im reading the dialog on the graphics and concerns based on the early Civ IV screenshots we have been allotted so far. With Civ II I remember reviewers praising the game lavishly but typically commenting on the rather unimpressive background and unit graphics compared to other games coming out at the time. It was a minor gripe. I never minded the simple graphics of Civ II very much as the background world graphics were decently pleasing to me, and the unit graphics were adequate...the game itself was dangerously fun. I also hadnt been as spoiled with lots of other gorgeously-rendered games of the time, perhaps.
I remember when I read reviews of Civ III in a couple of Mac magazines and finally saw some screenshots, I was startled. I could see pastel-colored, washed-out, low-detail, low-contrast, uniformly colored sorts of tiles for the background, no details in the seas, etc. It reminded me of some kind of almost abstract Asian art motif. It seemed like a big step BACK, if anything. I thought surely this was just the way the pictures turned out in the magazine shots, and in reality the graphics will have better contrast and detail and color. So, I was quite surprised and disappointed when I finally acquired Civ III and discovered that the graphics were, if anything, even worse looking in reality. Very unimaginative, pale, and, well, boring. I hope the persons responsible never read this, because I'm not out to hurt any feelings.
Meanwhile, in Civ III the unit graphics and animations are fantastic! Gorgeous, detailed, realistic. I couldnt be more impressed with what they did with the units. Obviously someone with a very different concept of game art did the backgrounds. I got the feeling that the backgrounds were given little thought or attention, or perhaps that the game was rushed to market or funds were running low, and that what we actually got were rough-draft unimproved background graphics, maybe not unlike the crude graphics we are seeing in the Civ IV screenshots right now. I felt a bit cheated, considering games arent cheap, and Civ is a very popular game series which should be able to afford some decent, state of the art background art after a long wait for the game.
Does anyone know the story of the production of Civ 3, who in what country actually created different aspects and graphics of the game, and whether they had to cut any corners for time or budget concerns? Id like to understand how and why we wound up with background artwork I can only describe as lazy and uninspired. And I am very much hoping the same people are not making the background art again this time--again no offense intended to anyone, but it just doesnt go well with a game which is trying to simulate a sense of the planet and history and all kinds of pseudo-world realism. Abstract watercolor-like backgrounds for me distract highly from my feeling that I am actually building an empire on planet earth. Also, Civ is ultimately an intense game. It should have some dramatic coloration with rich, vibrant colors, not Zen-like delicate, feminine pastels.
Anyone who played Civ Call to Power which came out YEARS before Civ III, knows how beautifully world terrain can be rendered for this kind of game. I really enjoyed the graphics in CTP. Maybe Sid Meier on board this time will help, or maybe Sid couldnt care less about graphics...I dont know. Civ II was surely not very focused on creating state of the art graphics either, but come to think of it, Sid wasn't directly on board for Civ II either as I recall.
I know there are surely many here who really dont mind the graphics or care about them much. Im just one of those aesthetically-inclined people who so much more deeply appreciates the art and realism (or fantasy) and imagination of things and their ability to transport me to and immerse me within whole other worlds of experience. Good art does this. For the same reason, I get excited about music and movies when they are able to transport me in some highly gratifying way. Theres nothing wrong with someone who doesn't care much about the graphics or get excited about them like I do. But there are a lot of people also who really do care about them and for whom gameplay is greatly enhanced when they are done well. I am one who thinks anything worth doing is worth doing well. I'd be ashamed to put something out that falls below the bar, personally. It's not like they crank out a Civ sequel every one or two years. They've got time and the market to do it right.
Inside info? Thoughts? Debates? Diatribes? Predictions? Disdain? Silent apathy?
Doug
I remember when I read reviews of Civ III in a couple of Mac magazines and finally saw some screenshots, I was startled. I could see pastel-colored, washed-out, low-detail, low-contrast, uniformly colored sorts of tiles for the background, no details in the seas, etc. It reminded me of some kind of almost abstract Asian art motif. It seemed like a big step BACK, if anything. I thought surely this was just the way the pictures turned out in the magazine shots, and in reality the graphics will have better contrast and detail and color. So, I was quite surprised and disappointed when I finally acquired Civ III and discovered that the graphics were, if anything, even worse looking in reality. Very unimaginative, pale, and, well, boring. I hope the persons responsible never read this, because I'm not out to hurt any feelings.
Meanwhile, in Civ III the unit graphics and animations are fantastic! Gorgeous, detailed, realistic. I couldnt be more impressed with what they did with the units. Obviously someone with a very different concept of game art did the backgrounds. I got the feeling that the backgrounds were given little thought or attention, or perhaps that the game was rushed to market or funds were running low, and that what we actually got were rough-draft unimproved background graphics, maybe not unlike the crude graphics we are seeing in the Civ IV screenshots right now. I felt a bit cheated, considering games arent cheap, and Civ is a very popular game series which should be able to afford some decent, state of the art background art after a long wait for the game.
Does anyone know the story of the production of Civ 3, who in what country actually created different aspects and graphics of the game, and whether they had to cut any corners for time or budget concerns? Id like to understand how and why we wound up with background artwork I can only describe as lazy and uninspired. And I am very much hoping the same people are not making the background art again this time--again no offense intended to anyone, but it just doesnt go well with a game which is trying to simulate a sense of the planet and history and all kinds of pseudo-world realism. Abstract watercolor-like backgrounds for me distract highly from my feeling that I am actually building an empire on planet earth. Also, Civ is ultimately an intense game. It should have some dramatic coloration with rich, vibrant colors, not Zen-like delicate, feminine pastels.
Anyone who played Civ Call to Power which came out YEARS before Civ III, knows how beautifully world terrain can be rendered for this kind of game. I really enjoyed the graphics in CTP. Maybe Sid Meier on board this time will help, or maybe Sid couldnt care less about graphics...I dont know. Civ II was surely not very focused on creating state of the art graphics either, but come to think of it, Sid wasn't directly on board for Civ II either as I recall.
I know there are surely many here who really dont mind the graphics or care about them much. Im just one of those aesthetically-inclined people who so much more deeply appreciates the art and realism (or fantasy) and imagination of things and their ability to transport me to and immerse me within whole other worlds of experience. Good art does this. For the same reason, I get excited about music and movies when they are able to transport me in some highly gratifying way. Theres nothing wrong with someone who doesn't care much about the graphics or get excited about them like I do. But there are a lot of people also who really do care about them and for whom gameplay is greatly enhanced when they are done well. I am one who thinks anything worth doing is worth doing well. I'd be ashamed to put something out that falls below the bar, personally. It's not like they crank out a Civ sequel every one or two years. They've got time and the market to do it right.
Inside info? Thoughts? Debates? Diatribes? Predictions? Disdain? Silent apathy?
Doug
That's how a business listens - with their pocketbooks.
