Graphics & Animation - Who Cares??

[VoodooAce]

I realize i'm probably in the minority here, but I could really give a rat's *ss about things like unit animation. I'm far more concerned with general playability.

I hope Firaxis isn't spending too much time and memory on this sort of thing.

Granted, it doen's suck if the graphics are easy on the eyes, I just don't need to see my oil spouting, wheat blowing, etc...

 

[BlueMonday]

I agree that playability takes precedence over graphics, but I feel it's necessary for civ 3 to have good graphics. Give us something new and exciting to look at, not the same old stuff. Can you imagine what civ 2 would have been like if they hadn't improved the graphics from civ 1? That would definitely have sucked (probably enough to make me not play the game).

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/image_uploads/goodbye3.jpg" border=0>
<FONT COLOR="blue">I don't ask why, I just fall into the meadow; I close my eyes, and I, I wait to die.
Yes I am a liar, yes I am a sinner; please forgive my broken soul.</FONT c>

 

[stormerne]

I sympathise with VoodooAce's point. I am not personally interested so much in the graphics as the playability. The enjoyment I get playing Civ comes mostly from the game itself, not the graphics.

On the other hand CivIII MUST HAVE vastly improved graphics! It really needs it. WE really need it! Here's why...

State of the Art graphics will determine what kind of reviews CivIII gets in the press. That will affect the sales and the number of new players taking it up. I say we NEED CivIII sales to be as high as possible, because without that there will be no future software development of the Civ series. Who would implement all the fabulous ideas that have appeared on this site then?

In short, better graphics = higher sales = more investment in future enhancements of Civ. I guess we all want that.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.anglo-saxon.demon.co.uk/stormerne/stormerne.gif" border=0>

 

[Andu Indorin]

Form follows function; keep it clean.

(Which is too say, judging from what I've already seen, I'm gonna missa the iconography of Civ2 when I play Civ3; so I hope the AI will present more a challenge).

 

[Loaf Warden]

stormerne's points are all valid, but even knowing that academically, I still can't help but feel when I see those animated leader faces that they're going to take up a lot more memory than should be necessary for a thing like that while at the same time adding absolutely nothing to gameplay. I won't say I'd be happier without them, because I haven't played the game yet and I don't know what they will ultimately be like. But I will say I can't seem to garner much excitement about them.

That said, I admit I was--and am--in the camp that wants a better city view screen. I like watching the growth of my glorious cities, but something about having a size 20 city in the middle of the desert filled with more trees than houses doesn't seem to quite cut it. Call it an unnecessary indulgence, but I guess we're all entitled to a few. On my personal list of Things That Matter for computer/video games, graphics would be at the very bottom (if I was ever bored enough to actually write such a list down). But I guess I can't say I'd leave it off entirely.

 

[Thunderfall]

State of the Art graphics will determine what kind of reviews CivIII gets in the press.

agreed. If Civ3 has a 10 rating for gameplay but only a 6 for graphics, the overall rating will be low (a 7 or 8). Games have to have good graphics and good gameplay (as well as good promotion) to be succesfully nowadays.

 

[Tripa]

thats right so make sure u advertise big espsually in Australia
the only games i ever see advertised over here are first person shooters u probly say thats coz thats what ppl buy
but thats coz they have no idea on whats out there i introduced one of my mates to CTP2 when i was in love with it and now ive told him bout the bug he still dosnt care lol he just likes to play it for a change from 1St person shooters

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

While I also agree with Stormerne on this, I do think there's a difference between clean, elegant, updated graphics and tacky bells and whistles.

A well-made game can survive, and even thrive by staying true to itself. Look at Myst or Sim City. Didn't people have doubts at first because they are non-competitive games? They sold well; indeed they spawned sequels.

Everyone knows that the point of Civ is not the graphics (as opposed to, maybe, Myst). Anyone who thinks it's a mediocre game bacause of less than blow-your-socks-off graphics is a fool. That goes for game reviewers too. Civ will always sell well and spread through word-of-mouth, which is far more powerful than magazine reviews.

 

[BlueMonday]

I have to disagree with you on that one, Mr. Bond. Look at the Simcity series. From the first Simcity up to Simcity 2000, the game grew and grew in popularity. Then they released Simcity 3000 and later 3000 Unlimited and all of a sudden sales dropped. Why? becuase SC3K was exactly the same as SC2K with the added worry of garbage disposal. People saw it and said, "What the !!!!, this is the exact same thing as Simcity 2000. Why should I buy this?"

Graphic improvement is a must for the growth of any gaming series. If Firaxis does not make a real effort to improve the graphics in civ 3, it will be the biggest marketing flop in computer gaming history. Because, if they don't improve graphics only diehard civfanatics like us will be willing to buy it.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/image_uploads/goodbye3.jpg" border=0>
<FONT COLOR="blue">I don't ask why, I just fall into the meadow; I close my eyes, and I, I wait to die.
Yes I am a liar, yes I am a sinner; please forgive my broken soul.</FONT c>

 

[Mongol Horde]

It goes without saying that civIII graphics will be better, we are five years on from civII and the team at Firaxis would be laughed at if they couldn't improve the graphics at all. I am all for nicer terrain graphics nicer units etc just because it's a sequel and you expect it. What does annoy me are the "frilly" bits you know the bits I mean, animated leader faces, wonder movies etc. They are just completely pointless and add nothing whatsoever to the game. I mean the goddam throne room? the same thing over and over again. The time and money spent on these frilly bits could have gone into other areas of the game.

A small side issue, anyone noticed how civIII seems to be more units and less icons? Don't quite know what I feel about this yet.

 

[Dan Magaha FIRAXIS]

Originally posted by BlueMonday:
I have to disagree with you on that one, Mr. Bond. Look at the Simcity series. From the first Simcity up to Simcity 2000, the game grew and grew in popularity. Then they released Simcity 3000 and later 3000 Unlimited and all of a sudden sales dropped. Why? becuase SC3K was exactly the same as SC2K with the added worry of garbage disposal. People saw it and said, "What the !!!!, this is the exact same thing as Simcity 2000. Why should I buy this?"

Graphic improvement is a must for the growth of any gaming series. If Firaxis does not make a real effort to improve the graphics in civ 3, it will be the biggest marketing flop in computer gaming history. Because, if they don't improve graphics only diehard civfanatics like us will be willing to buy it.

I could be wrong, but when SC3000 came out, I'm pretty sure it was the fastest-selling game in EA's history.

Just some food for thought.


Dan
Firaxis Games, Inc.

 

[Loaf Warden]

Originally posted by Mongol Horde:
What does annoy me are the "frilly" bits you know the bits I mean, animated leader faces, wonder movies etc. They are just completely pointless and add nothing whatsoever to the game.

Really? I liked the Wonder Movies, myself. I agree they didn't add anything to the game per se, but most of them had music that was quite enjoyable to listen to. I always wished they'd release a soundtrack with the full-length versions of all the Wonder Movie themes. (Or have they? I don't know; things like that are generally hard to come by in this part of the world.)

 

[spiralx]

Originally posted by BlueMonday:
I have to disagree with you on that one, Mr. Bond. Look at the Simcity series. From the first Simcity up to Simcity 2000, the game grew and grew in popularity. Then they released Simcity 3000 and later 3000 Unlimited and all of a sudden sales dropped. Why? becuase SC3K was exactly the same as SC2K with the added worry of garbage disposal. People saw it and said, "What the !!!!, this is the exact same thing as Simcity 2000. Why should I buy this?"

Errm, as I recall Sim City 3000 was far more playable than Sim City 2000 (less micromanagement of water pipes, special deals etc.) and sales weren't as low as you seemed to make out. They'd hardly have released an Unlimited version if the original never sold would they?

 

[Andu Indorin]

Originally posted by Mongol Horde:
What does annoy me are the "frilly" bits you know the bits I mean, animated leader faces, wonder movies etc. They are just completely pointless and add nothing whatsoever to the game. I mean the goddam throne room? the same thing over and over again. The time and money spent on these frilly bits could have gone into other areas of the game.

Could agree more on the animated graphics. But there will be the option to turn off these bells and whistles. Which is good thing to: The A. Lincoln graphics, in my opinion, look like a damned insult to worthy leader! (And as for Chairman Mao, those graphics really seem capture the senility of his later years; and the Queen Elizabeth I graphics almost captures the pain of her syphillitic condition). I'll probably watch each of these leaders negotiate once, wince in pain, and turn off those graphics forever more!

 

[kundor]

What does annoy me are the "frilly" bits you know the bits I mean, animated leader faces, wonder movies etc. They are just completely pointless and add nothing whatsoever to the game. I mean the goddam throne room? the same thing over and over again.

Half the reason I build wonders is to see the videos! And I think that the throne room gives a good way to tell if you're doing well-if it changed all the time to reflect the government type and the tech you have it would be better.

 

[BlueMonday]

OK, I stretched my point in the SC3K example. I checked up on it and SC3K sold a little better the SC2K; however, nearly every review and most of the customer replies about the topic were railing about the lack of graphic improvement. From the first SimCity to SC2K there was major changes in graphics (switching from 2D to 3D isometric). However, SC3K didn't change that at all, in fact the graphics were only slightly improved over SC2K. They just featured new buildings.

To the point: Graphics MUST be improved. I do not deny that graphics take a back seat to gameplay, but using a graphics model that is five years old is simply foolish. People expect new and improved graphics and if they are not delivered, say "adios" to sales.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/image_uploads/goodbye3.jpg" border=0>
<FONT COLOR="blue">I don't ask why, I just fall into the meadow; I close my eyes, and I, I wait to die.
Yes I am a liar, yes I am a sinner; please forgive my broken soul.</FONT c>

 

[VoodooAce]

I can sympathize with those that desire cleaner graphics on the game screen. While I could personally do without them, and deal with the graphics from, say, TOT, I understand that improvements are necessary to generate sales, particularly to the uninitiated

.

I just don't want to see the aptly described "bells and whistles" take too much memory/time from improving playability.

That being said, I have little sympathy for those who play the game to watch the videos!