For those who are worried about the unit size and zoom graphics.

[GeneralEggbert]

I hope this pic puts things into perspective for you
​

 

[brianshapiro]

I hope this pic puts things into perspective for you
​

is that meant to be an example of how there's no difference?--its actually a good example to show how much larger they look. like i said in the other thread, its not about city width vs unit height, its how everything is represented graphically that makes it completely off. i think anyone looking at that screenshot can see its off, that screenshot is a perfect example. not that it matters anyway, since it appears from recent screenshots unit size is smaller by default, and maybe differs based on zoom.

 

[GeneralEggbert]

is that meant to be an example of how there's no difference?--its actually a good example to show how much larger they look. like i said in the other thread, its not about city width vs unit height, its how everything is represented graphically that makes it completely off. i think anyone looking at that screenshot can see its off, that screenshot is a perfect example. not that it matters anyway, since it appears from recent screenshots unit size is smaller by default, and maybe differs based on zoom.

No, friend Think of it as merely an example of how beautiful civilization 4 looks In comparison to its predisecors.

 

[warpstorm]

Ya know, I was thinking, "Damn, the new look is so much crisper"

 

[fishlore]

LOL, the Civ 4 graphics are laughable. Each new screenshot I see is uglier than the one that proceeds it.

 

[mag827]

At first glance I thought the soliders in the first picture are going to stomp the city into oblivion.

 

[HourlyDaily]

I'll never understand you Civ 4 graphics haters. Feel free to be one though, but its not going to ruin the fun I have with the game.

 

[fishlore]

I'll never understand the people that think these graphics look good. Having said that, I don't know yet if the I'll have fun with the game or not since I haven't played it. What's worse, people already declaring that this will be the best civ ever even though they haven't played it yet. I might love this game, I might hate it, but I'm not foolish enough to make that declaration until, you know, I actually play it.

Are these graphics going to bring in people new to the Civ franchise based on looks alone? Personally, I highly doubt it. This game looks outdated by several generations to me. At least in the meantime they'll be alienating a portion of their core audience that didn't want to have to upgrade their machines to play. I'd prefer Civ 1 graphics to Civ 4 graphics, but honestly if the graphics weren't terrible, I'd be happy to upgrade my laptop in order to play. Right now though I'm not so sure I will.

 

[Commander Bello]

No, friend Think of it as merely an example of how beautiful civilization 4 looks In comparison to its predisecors.

Looks more than having got a new graphics engine and not known how to handle it.

I'll never understand you Civ 4 graphics haters. Feel free to be one though, but its not going to ruin the fun I have with the game.

That is the problem with all of you fanboys. You think you would be personally confronted if somebody expresses his doubts.
Hey, who cares about if you like the game? Feel free!

 

[Raggamuffin]

The game hasn't even been released yet, sheesh. These endless topics are getting tiresome.

I'm personally satisfied with graphics, I admit I wasn't at first but they have grown on me. Takes time to get adjusted to such a big change. I tried for example start up a game of Civ3 the other day but I couldn't help feeling that it looked like something I could wrap up myself in Paint, which is exactly the same notion I got when Civ3 was around the corner and I was still playing Civ2. Unfortunately the more zoomed out screenshots are scarse and people still judge the game from zoomed in ones that never looks good in 3D games. Look at WC3, AOE3 or any other example and the look like crap when viewed in a microscope.

It's not the graphics that worry me, I will be comfortable with them. It's the gameplay, features and AI that does. That's three factors you know nothing about before you've played the yourself. Hopefully more and more reviews can shed some light to that the coming weeks. The recent one at IGN made me a bit more anticipating.

 

[Superkrest]

fishlore..i have to agree..i would have rather had simular graphics to before..then have my machine struggle to play this game...

i dont think the graphics are "horrible"...but if they make the game run slow for me...that would be horrible..lol. i know i have to upgrade eventually anyways. but ive always had comfort in knowing civ would be there for me..lol not now

 

[Leprechaune]

fishlore..i have to agree..i would have rather had simular graphics to before..then have my machine struggle to play this game...

i dont think the graphics are "horrible"...but if they make the game run slow for me...that would be horrible..lol. i know i have to upgrade eventually anyways. but ive always had comfort in knowing civ would be there for me..lol not now

Last generation computers that can no longer be purchased commercialy will have no problem running Civ 4. So to buy an upgrade system for $150 - $250 isn't that bad a deal if you need that badly to upgrade anyhow.

Seriously, that's NOTHING for gaming these days. XBOX360 is gonna be between $598 - $698 depending on the bundle you choose here in Canada.
(Keep in mind that as I am saying this, I don't have the money to invest in a computer upgrade myself. But it's within grasp if it were a priority)

Now, if anyone is saying both that they think the graphics suck and that they don't want their computer to be bogged down with graphics, they realy need to think a bit more before complaining.

 

[Superkrest]

im not saying that..lol..im saying it will be horrible if they do bog me down..my system is right at the requirements..so i hope i works...lol..i want to play the game..i just dont want to make a 300 purchase in order to do it.

i think though they could have done a lil bit better job with the graphics..but i think it is a step in the right direction for sure.. i guess i wasnt really complaining ..just kinda kidding about my lazyness for doing an upgrade to cope with "the selfish people at fraxis who wanted to go 3d" lol

 

[warpus]

is that meant to be an example of how there's no difference?--its actually a good example to show how much larger they look. like i said in the other thread, its not about city width vs unit height, its how everything is represented graphically that makes it completely off. i think anyone looking at that screenshot can see its off, that screenshot is a perfect example. not that it matters anyway, since it appears from recent screenshots unit size is smaller by default, and maybe differs based on zoom.

You say all this and you haven't explained at all how the units look larger and "off". If you measure them, they look smaller compared to civ3 units vs cities. Perhaps you should explain what exactly you mean by "off"? You say that it's not the height or width, but that they are larger? You make no sense at all!

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I think it is because Civ IV Buildings look smaller than Civ 3 buildings (look at the buildings in the two pictures, the units and cities are about the same size but in civ 3 the Cathdral type building seem about the same size as the spearmen... in the Civ IV picture none of the buildings seem to come as high as the unit's knees

 

[Leprechaune]

I think it is because Civ IV Buildings look smaller than Civ 3 buildings (look at the buildings in the two pictures, the units and cities are about the same size but in civ 3 the Cathdral type building seem about the same size as the spearmen... in the Civ IV picture none of the buildings seem to come as high as the unit's knees

Yes, and that is by design to facilitate the WYSIWYG feature in the game. What we're looking at in those examples are a near perfect comparison of scale based on the "TILE" size.

 

[Alistic]

While you guys are looking at the scale of the units, we will be taking your cities.

 

[fishlore]

(Keep in mind that as I am saying this, I don't have the money to invest in a computer upgrade myself. But it's within grasp if it were a priority)

This is partially my point. I can easily afford an upgrade or purchase a top of the line machine if I wanted. The point is, an upgrade isn't a priority when the best I can hope to achieve are graphics on par with these miserable looking screenshots. Civ 1-3 had never been about graphics. Now all of a sudden Civ is very much about graphics. The de-emphasis of menus, the WYSIWYG UI, the hope to pull in new gamers with the words 3D engine on the box. I'm not opposed to the jump to 3D. I'm just opposed to this pathetic implementation of 3D. As I've said numerous times in the past though, I'll still give this game every chance in the world to appeal to me. I'm not holding my breath though.

 

[Goombaz]

While you guys are looking at the scale of the units, we will be taking your cities.

No, you'll be pulling your hair out waiting for them to click the turn button before the timer runs out each turn

Not that I can point fingers at the unit scale gripers, as I am a card carrying "There damn well better be *#$%!! skyscrapers" fanatic.

Down with stone huts!!

 

[Lahdoz]

I don't think anybody ever bought any Civ game because of, or even considering graphics. I'm glad to see the graphics have been cleaned up myself. If you just don't like the graphics, that's fine, everybody has their opinions. Rant away, I'm about to. If you are complaining because you don't think your computer han handle it..... That's another matter.

If you barely meet the minimum requirements (1G CPU, 256 M RAM, and 32 M video), you probably aren't playing anything at very high resolution, or very current anyway. If you want to game, you have to keep you computer up to date. Don't plan on a 4 year old PIII to reliably and tolerably do much other than internet, e-mail, and text documents. What would you say to somebody who still watches TV in black and white?

Why should advances in games be held back because a handful of people are to cheap or broke to keep up? Computers are luxury items like big homes, HDTV, cigarettes and ice cream; if you can't afford it, don't do it, and definitely don't whine about it.

There is a reason that most techs will rarely recommend fixing a computer that is more than 3 years old. Computer hardware is cheap these days.

If you can afford and justify a $50 video game, you can afford and justify a $200 MB, CPU, RAM combo, or you can turn down the resolution, turn off all extra effects, play on small maps only, and know that you are missing out on a lot.

End rant.