Graphics - 2D or 3D

[Last_Evolution]

Do you prefer 2D or 3D? Or : would you play good civ game if it was only 2D?

 

[cardgame]

I loved civ3's gfx. civ2 was pretty awesome for its time and is still quite enjoyable. Graphics do not matter to me a whole lot, they're sort of the icing on the cake.

 

[Quintillus]

I love Civ3's graphics, too. I prefer them to Civ4's. They seem, I suppose, more realistic, refined, and polished. Basically, very good 2D graphics. The quality of Civ4's 3D graphics amongst 3D graphics seems a lot lower than Civ3's 2D graphics amongst 2D graphics. (It wouldn't hurt to note that the isometric graphics of Civ3 and many other strategy games are sometimes called "2.5D").

I'm not convinced that 3D would be an improvement even if the quality was very good. True, the sheep moving around are charming, but unlike in role-playing or shooter games, there's no clear point of reference as to how to get 3D strategy graphics that look good and aren't horribly cartoony or cheesy (Civ5 doesn't look to be a whole lot better than Civ4 in the cartoony department in my opinion).

In my opinion, Medieval II Total War has a much better-looking campaign map than Civ4, or the screenshots of Civ5 thus far (although those may well change - they resemble Civ4 an awful lot right now). It looks much more realistic, professional, and strategic. I find Empire: Total War's campaign map to be much better than Civ4's as well, although I don't own that game and thus have only seen screenshots of its map. I don't know if they are 2D or 3D, but IMO Civ4's artists could use some tips from SEGA's artists.

And even if Total War's maps are 3D, consider Galactic Civilizations II and Europa Universalis III, both of which use 2D maps. Does it detract from gameplay? No, and that's what's really important.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I prefer 2D because it fits more with the representation of the different elements in Civ, it is to say schematic. For example, city population growth is very schematic in this game, people seem to born in cabbages... so the units represented by icons is much more fitting than just realistic representations. It gives a hint that we are only in a game, and we can extrapolate to be ruling a true civ on the same basis as the game has. 2D graphics and particularly icons are with consistency in the world of Civ, with 3D or realistic units is definitly not the same feeling.

As i said in another topic, the whole super-feeling i had about Civ was conditionned by the discovering of the game, including the "hey I rule a true civ" part. This was possible only because i started to play at a game, and only a game, with its schematic mechanisms and schematic units (icons), to go slowly into the representation of a true civilization. It was possible only because the graphic aspect reminded me i was in a game first, to become more of a simulation then.

The fact that the graphics are 3D pretends that Civ is a simulatoin first, whereas it's just a game with schematic mechanics. So it can't work.

Also, after having played hundred times at Civ2, it is possible that i am "bored" by this feeling, or precisely that i am not surprised anymore by it, because i know most of the game and know how it will unfold, and yes, it is so that the game is the same in its major parts. I wish developers to improve the game so that new feelings appear us to enjoy the sequels more.

All in all, I don't think it is much important. The point of Civ is not only there. Most people will not even understand what i'm on about. Civ has much more other attractive points. Maybe not as much for myself. I kinda know what is Civ know, so my interest in it has decreased. But it is a so incredible game that i can't wait for the new feelings it can offer each time. However, the new feelings may be way less numerous than when playing Civ2. The worst of all was Civ4. Felt nothing new in it. But i have hopes for Civ5, and nevertheless i will play at it, that's for sure.

 

[LDiCesare]

2D is hundreds of times easier to mod. Therefore 2D for me. 3D adds little or nothing (easy zooming + rotating camera, but these don't require 3D units).

 

[Provost Martin]

3D all the way for me. 8-10 years ago I would have said 2D, just because of the fact that it looked better. But nowadays with better hardware and prettier graphics. Definitely 3D. Just look at the screenshots for Civ5. The atmosphere looks awesome. For me that is a key element in a game. Not as important as gameplay though, of course.

 

[Kyriakos]

Lets see.

Civ3

Civ4

Yeah

 

[Meteora]

3D.

Simply because, usually the logical answer is when you make the transition to 3D; you don't go back.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I prefer civ3 style to Civ4 one (though civ2 is waay to aesthetically unpleasant for me), but the trouble with 2D is that it can have trouble dealing with large or exotic resolutions.

 

[Trias]

To me 2D would only be acceptable if it was completely vector based. Otherwise the graphics would not scale to any resolution, making the game not as flexible from platform to platform.

Today computers come with a very large spread of resolution displays. And LCD displays cannot adapt to other resolutions like CRTs could in the past. It is thus important that players are able to run the game in their native resolution. Rasterized 2D graphics make this impossible.

 

[Provost Martin]

I like how you zoomed in for the Civ4 shot trying to present it as ugly as possible,

 

[Kyriakos]

Not my pic, i dont own civ4

 

[Lone Wolf]

I like how you zoomed in for the Civ4 shot trying to present it as ugly as possible,

Worse then that - he selected a screenshot of a pre-release Civ4 version, that is indeed one of the most visually offending civ4 screenshots in the gallery.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I could post un-modded Civ 3 versus a zoomed out fully anti-aliased Civ 4 with the latest VD/CD mods. Civ 3 didn't look bad by any means, but Civ 4 looks far better with the right mods.

 

[Lord Tirian]

2D is hundreds of times easier to mod. Therefore 2D for me. 3D adds little or nothing (easy zooming + rotating camera, but these don't require 3D units).

Easier to mod for you. 3D modelling and animating requires a different skill set, very easy to be good at 3D modding and terrible at 2D. In such a case, 3D modding is hundreds of times easier to mod.

Also, 3D, since it's building a model instead of a rasterised image, is more flexible in size, movements and so on.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Kyriakos]

Having once modelled a 3d building for civ4 (never released it though) i can agree in part with you that it requires different skills. But i am certain that only the best of modellers can mod 2d (even moreso as the actual size of the graphic increases, and the details show), whereas 3d can be done by anyone with basic modelling skills and a good set of skins.

That said, i did fail in my one and only 3d game model, but i didnt try much, and disliked heavily that i had to use skins since i am unfamiliar with uv-mapping

Here is the model i had made for civ4. It had 11.000 polygons ( i am told that the average civ4 model has less than 500)

 

[Last_Evolution]

To me 2D would only be acceptable if it was completely vector based. Otherwise the graphics would not scale to any resolution, making the game not as flexible from platform to platform.

Today computers come with a very large spread of resolution displays. And LCD displays cannot adapt to other resolutions like CRTs could in the past. It is thus important that players are able to run the game in their native resolution. Rasterized 2D graphics make this impossible.

Are you sure that this is a problem? I thought that you would just change size of visible grid on different resolution, so the tile graphics would remain the same.

 

[LDiCesare]

Easier to mod for you. 3D modelling and animating requires a different skill set, very easy to be good at 3D modding and terrible at 2D. In such a case, 3D modding is hundreds of times easier to mod.

Also, 3D, since it's building a model instead of a rasterised image, is more flexible in size, movements and so on.

Cheers, LT.

It's a different skill, yes, but if you can do 3d, you can do 2d. I mean, you can always create your 3d model, render it, copy the image and you've got a 2d image. I know some modders who made 2d images off a 3d model and did exactly that. So I discount your argument. 3d can be turned into 2d (print screen does it). The converse is not true (unless you want to).

I know 3D is better with resizing, but you can do 2D vector images that scale well too.

It is much longer to mod a unit in 3D (model + textures + anims) than in 2D (akin to texturing).
If I compare the variety of new units in Civ IV and Civ2, I think Civ2 is richer. I haven't checked figures, so I can be wrong, but I haven't seen the same variety of units in Civ IV.

 

[mna27]

I think 2d is fine. Sometimes 3d gets annoying because you get use to a certain viewpoint then when you change the view point it gets a little disorientating.

I would think 2d graphics are a lot easier to make so I would rather them have really detailed 2d graphics then not so great 3d graphics.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think 2d is fine. Sometimes 3d gets annoying because you get use to a certain viewpoint then when you change the view point it gets a little disorientating.

I would think 2d graphics are a lot easier to make so I would rather them have really detailed 2d graphics then not so great 3d graphics.

3d gfx are not more difficult to make. Nowdays all serious modders use 3d programs, nomatter if they make isometric (2d) models, or full 3d.

The 3d models you see in civ4 are hilariously simple in comparisson to the contemporary ones made for civ3.