Graphics - 2D or 3D

[tom2050]

Civ 5 will be slow and 'pudgy' on the average computer system also. We are not talking about the high-end systems, but the average non-gaming systems most people own. So the majority will likely be forced to slide all the graphical scales down quite a ways and turn anti-aliasing off to run it at a reasonable playing speed.

2d you obviously can play at a faster pace in these types of games, without needing to wait for some long drawn-out 3d graphic to go through it's animations; and having to constantly screw around with the zoom and pan to get the right angle. HoMM5 was absurdly annoying in this aspect (like playing in slow-motion, the waiting bored me to tears), and Civ4 was also a tad nerved in this arena, although not bad.

If they get this right, and make it so the 3d will not be distracting by resource hogging and frame skips, no camera hassle, and keep unit movements and actions quick and to the point; props to them.

-------------

Here is a good pic of Civ 4... it looks like Freeciv in semi-okay 3d.

 

[frekk]

Not all 2D is all that bad. This, for instance, is a 2D game:

But, it would represent a step back. There's alot you can't do in 2D.

I like the less busy graphics of 5, from what I've seen so far. Something about 4's graphics, while technically better than its predecessors, seemed too busy and chaotic.

 

[Wolf Rider]

Is that a Mod or the regular game? I haven't played Civ 3 in a while, but I don't remember seeing so many buildings out in the open.

Some things I liked about Civ 3's graphics, but I think 3D is better. 3D.

 

[Kyriakos]

It is a mod, using my city and terrain gfx

 

[Wolf Rider]

Looks good.

 

[Maniacal]

2D is fine with me, 3Ds needs lots of polygons and high-res textures to look nice a lot of the time, otherwise they tend towards looking a bit fake.

 

[joanne]

Civ4 looks and feels good, but I wouldn't mind if they combine civ5 gameplay with civ3 graphics

 

[Souron]

3D graphics are good of course, but if it's a trade off between map size and 3D graphics, then map size wins...

 

[Mango Elephant]

Yeppers, good 2D is way more preferable to bad 3D. CivV seems to be really, really nice, but Civ4 got old pretty fast and I went back to Civ3

 

[imperiex1]

Overall, I would prefer 3D to 2D. In 3D, you can turn the map to see an object from a different angle - something impossible in any kind of 3D. However, in the case of , the 3D graphics weren't that great. Compare these pictures of Civs 4 and 5:

Spoiler :

The graphics for Civ4 here look "fabricated." They don't look and feel like the actual objects they are supposed to represent. If they added more polygons AND made the graphics slightly bigger, that would be great. I appreciate the fact that Civ 5's graphics are cleaner, and less chaotic.. Civ 5 is going the right way in graphics.

 

[Lachlan]

I prefer graphics of Civ V, we will have a nice game with Civ V finally

 

[general-jcl]

Personally I prefer 2d for a strategy game (3d is for FPS or real time games).
The 3d consumes too many system resources and the graphics are often more angular and less successful.
There is no interest in being able to zoom in on the units or on the ground in a game like Civ. I also see no need to rotate the map in any direction.
Other advantages: it would allow the game to run on computers with low configuration and we could have a better AI.
We could have bigger maps too, and for sure a better game.

 

[imperiex1]

Maybe you could be able to set whether it is 2D or 3D? Good 3D looks far better than any kind of 2D, if your graphics card can handle it. My card is pretty good, it can handle 3D, so I'd like to put it to work.

 

[Kyriakos]

I agree with general, i do not see the point in having a turn based strategy game be in 3d.

 

[TheDS]

I like it when graphics make it possible for you to tell the difference between different things all at a glance. There are tons of things in Civ4 that you can't tell the difference between. I had no such problems with Civ1, nor did I have to suffer with multi-minute graphics loads just to display a friggin' leaderhead. I could play it on any computer with enough RAM to hold the map and units. To play Civ4 I've got to have a totally rockin' computer... for a turn-based game? WTH?

I've got the same complains against Massive Assault; they turned a great concept into a horrid execution because they wanted it to be 3D. It looks pretty for about 5 minutes, then you realize the whole friggin' game is bogged down because of all the pretty, indistinguishable units that you can't even see against the background unless you turn on dots and hexes and stuff.

It ain't rocket science!

 

[Velja]

Personally, I LOVE 2D, like in civ3, but really they should make an in-game option that both should be playable. I dont think that is too much work, and older civ players will love it.

 

[techathon]

I prefer 4D.

 

[candle86]

For something like this 2d is fine and for you 3d fans you can easily do a voxel based engine. Also how many have a skillset for 2d artwork? Want to know the trick here, make the image big to begin with and use image compression. With modern computer storage you could easily hold 512x512 or 1024x1024 resolution images, and with image compression you can shink there size down in loaded memory for older computers or uncompressed for modern ones. Now you say when that 512x512 shrinks it looks terrible, well thats because an amature did it lol. Now a Voxel Engine is 3d kinda, look at Command and Conquer uptill Generals thats Voxels lol, yet the units look 3d. You need front, left, right, and back, or you can do 8 or 16 images all in 2d that make up a voxel based graphic, and it looks 3d while using the resources of 2d. This also means quite simply that folks with intel extreme graphics can also run it.

 

[LaRate]

I believe 3D graphics is here to stay even for games that do not need 3D for gameplay reasons (like Civ). The reason is, it is becoming much easier to create nice and arbitrary looking landscape by using in-built effects like dynamic lighting, shading etc. Animations are much easier to realize in 3D.

2D graphics need either be painted, which is laborous, expensive and inflexible or pre-rendered, which seems kinda unnecessarily inflexible because even low-budget laptops have the graphic processing power to do this real-time.

However, these advantages of 3D invite to pay less attention to the artwork (Models and Textures) which might result in 3D looking considerably worse than 2D - but that is not a problem of the technology but rather of priority in game design.

 

[The_Hess]

I personally prefer civ3 to civ4. I like the simplicity of the graphics, as the actual units look fairly realistic, the maps make it easy to pick out details 'at a glance' and the whole interface is clear and uncluttered. I think civ 4 looked a little 'cartoony' whereas 3 had a more slick professional look. The problem with some 3D set ups is that units tend to blur against the background.

If they can match the clarity of civ3 in 3D then I'm all for it, if not then 2D is best. This isn't a fps so realism in terms of graphics is not important. If I want to see my computer produce fantastic graphics then I'll play Crysis. Think about it, chess games are basically the same in 2D or 3D. 3D looks better but 2D often gives you a better tactical view of the board and is easier to spot moves. The same applies to civ.