First Civ 4 Screenshots!

[Jon Shafer]

I guess I'll have to repeat this message every few posts for people who only look at the shots and then post...

Civ 4 is at least a year away, the graphics will change GREATLY between now and release.

 

[Tomoyo]

It looks wierd now, but it looks nice, actually. If there is a grid that can be turned on, I can get used to it quite easily.

 

[viper275]

Umm.... at least there will be something for people at the C&C forum to do...

Edit: But there are no Giant Death Robots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ybbor]

here's the thing, regardless of how the graphics look, the bottom line is that the direction they're taking the graphics is artsy, and away from what it is now, so while i'm not ready to come out and say the graphics for civ4 are horrible or will be horrible, i'll sya this. the direction the graphics are going is bad

 

[MaXXXXXuM]

Damn, these come out right after I post my other skeptical topic... now this is gonna make me look pessemistic as hell... OMG... those are ermmm ummmm ugly as hell... I mean, even the early screenshots of Civ 3 had finely detailed units... those warriors just look like little blurry hulk hogans... Those graphics dont need to improve, they need to damn change totally!!!

 

[Tomoyo]

I just realized that if those are the screenshots, then it would be impossible to see all of your empire in one screen!

 

[Jon Shafer]

Keep in mind the images are scanned from a magazine and blown up... they're not in-game screenshots, so the quality of the images is MUCH poorer than the actual game would be. They were also most certainly cropped (you can't see anything else on the screen, and there's no way that'd be the whole interface).

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

The quality of the scan isn't the best it could be, MaXXXXXuM. I wouldn't be to sinical at the moment, It'ld be smarter to wait until some actual screenshots are placed on the web before commenting on the art. As for the direction of the graphics, I swear they are trying to make it look like a boardgame, probably to point out in some way that they got rid of a lot of micromanagement.

Here's another thought... those units might actually be a lot of different units placed into a stack (each stack seems to only have three or four different figures in it, so maybe stacked movement has been implemented in a away similar to how armies function. Then again, I could be completely wrong).

 

[Louis XXIV]

is it just me, or does this look CR@P? oh deer me ... why do developers think that we are so shallow as to need pretty graphics to want to play a game? (oh, and by the way, this ain't pretty)

My $0.02 of ranting! (possibly in Euros, as it might be worth more

One problem is you are assuming good graphics mean cut backs in other areas (and then, immediately after you assume this, you state that the graphics aren't so great). So I don't think there will be much of a problem (aside from the graphics not being great ).

Personally, I don't mind it. Yeah, it takes some getting used to, but it isn't bad.

 

[Jon Shafer]

I'm amazed so many people think the game will actually look like this...

Better add a disclaimer to the first post...

 

[Enkidu_Warrior]

i realise graphics is the first thing everyone sees, and it's natural to judge a book by its cover, but i rarely STOP playing a game because of its graphics. more important are things like AI quality, gameplay, fun factor, etc.

some great looking games just suck to play (eg sim city 4000) and some great to play games look cornball (eg wizardry 8)

no matter what they do with the graphics, i hope they implement all the improvements bullet-pointed in thunderfall's post, AND improve the interfaces (woulda hoped for hexagons, too).

quite frankly, the graphics are going to be the easiest thing to mod anyway, so why worry about that part? i'll only be shelling out the $80 (australian) if i hear that gameplay rocks.

EW

 

[Blackbird_SR-71]

i like the graphics even though others don't. some cleaning up would fix the job. but like Trip said this is just early screenshots and the graphics are guarrenteed to change. i'll even bet someone in this thread $10 the graphics will change. anyone up.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Very true. Graphics are only the outer packaging for the real meat of the game.

Personally, I'm far more interested in some of things that are SHOWN in the shots than their actual quality. Plus the article has some very nice info... I guess there won't be any people who doubt that Civ IV will include MP from release any more.

 

[Crimso]

Gah! I want hexagons! Gimmie gimmie gimmie!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I don't know though, Trip, those screenshots didn't really tell me ANYTHING (except perhaps that I should buy that issue of PC Gamer !) As far as graphics go, though, I would be happy if they went in the direction of a 3D version of Snoopy's graphics ! I'm not obssessed with the graphics, but some decent Eye candy is still nice !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Chieftess]

Here's something on game (And software) development - You always make it look pretty, last. You could have the best graphics in the world, but it could be very buggy. When you make a game, you use placeholder graphics. Those are just so you have something to look at, and get some idea what you're walking into. If it was just a black background, you wouldn't know if you can't move because you're next to the water, or whatnot.

i.e., say you made a game where water, and mountains were impassible (i.e., a RPG). You need simple graphics so you know where you are on the map. Those are just the placeholders, since the vital bugs and features are what's important.

Take my project I'm just finishing up at work as another example. It's a web application-based project, and currently, it looks ugly because of all the colors and debug labels. That's ok, since I'm in the process of removing the colors and making everything look nice.

One more example for those who don't get it.

Watch a design show (like While You Were Out). What do they do first? First comes analyzing the room, and the design. Then comes constructing pieces of the room (couch, pillows, furniture). THEN comes the staining and painting of the furniture.

Stop teasing them, Trip.

 

[Thunderfall]

I just replaced the 2 screenshots with the ones cropped directly from the scan I received, without any resizing.

[links removed]

 

[Jon Shafer]

I don't know though, Trip, those screenshots didn't really tell me ANYTHING (except perhaps that I should buy that issue of PC Gamer !) As far as graphics go, though, I would be happy if they went in the direction of a 3D version of Snoopy's graphics ! I'm not obssessed with the graphics, but some decent Eye candy is still nice !

Well, there are definite differences between Civ III and what's shown in those shots... windmills? What are those things next to the city's name? Plenty of interesting things, I think.

 

[Chieftess]

Also notice the buddha icon by one of the cities. Religion in the game, perhaps?

Trio of workers - Worker groups, maybe?

And you also have things there that look like tents, AoE's farmland...

And the Civ1 layout looks nostalgic.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I'm amazed so many people think the game will actually look like this...

Better add a disclaimer to the first post...

Comparing the quality of the early Civ3 screenshots to the final result, yeah, the final version looks better, but they look similar.

It appears that tey aren't going for a completely realistic look. I don't mind that. I don't mind that, it just takes a bit to get used to it.

Now let's look at what it shows:

The map appears to have switched to the civ1 type tiles (squares as opposed to diamonds). Rivers appear to go between tiles, just like before.

There are 3 warrior groups and a Spearman. Cologne is size 2, and is is building a warrior. There are horses north of the city and what appears to be jungle to the west. Forest in plains is to the south. I can't tell if that's a guy holding a shield or just a shield icon in the bottom right of the picture.

The city has two bars. They could be for culture, production, or food. There are some icons to the right, which don't seem to make much sense to me, but probably make sense to someone.

The second pic looks zoomed out, but the caption implies it is zoomed in.