Graphics Modding in Civ4: Looking to the future

[Dom Pedro II]

What I'm hoping is that the XML gives enough flexibility that I can lock out players from some aspects of micro-management.

I want to heighten the population-player relationship... so I'd like to make it so the population determines what buildings to build, or the construction of settlers depending on what government you're in.

 

[Varlin Saliptor]

Although I am very against Civ4, I am going to look at it as not the next Civ game, but a new game entirely. I suggest that the rest of you who do not like Civilization IV take a look at it from that direction. I myself think that the way Civ4 is headed is a mistake, but there are some who think it is a good idea. If you do not like it so far, give it a try (I will) and than make your judgement. If you do not want to tolerate it at all, then don't buy iy. It is as simple as that. Civ4 will not be the end of Civilization III, it will a chance to show how great CivIII is, compared to the new game. MOdding for Civ3 will still be there, and look at it this way: With a new game, comes new gamers; with a new forum, comes new members. Some of the Civ3ers will go to Civ4, but there will be a whole new set of players of Civ4, who laugh at the Civ3ers, when they have never played, just as we scoff them.

 

[DJ Bonebraker]

I'm kinda with Steph. The 3D engine conversion is just the tip of the Iceberf of my misgivings about Civ IV. From what I've seen, Civ IV will be to Civ III what MoO III was to MoO II, and this is mostly a gut feeling, but I've learned from past experience that I only ignore this feeling at my own peril.... If that indeed is the case (i.e. it's some flashy 3D game with overly complicated gameplay and a byzantine UI), then I could see (to carry the analagy further) Steph's Strategic Simulation becoming the equivalent to Galactic Civilizations (which, IIRC out-sold MoO III by at least 20-1), and all that Galactic Civilizations was was a re-worked MoO II engine with 2D graphics. Therefore, If there is no way to create "Billboard" units to convert units from Civ III, and everyone abandons Civ III, then I'll re-direct my modding and creative efforts toward Steph's Strategic Simulation game, which allows for use of all standard Civ III type graphics, but has a re-worked and more modable engine, and is free to boot. (Even if I DO get Civ IV, I'm waiting until they come out with Civ IV complete, so I won't be wasting money on two expansion packs that I wouldn't have needed if I'd have waited).

IF Civ IV turns out to be halfways decent, then maybe some of those who can afford the $3000 program needed to make units for the game could create a series of generic, commonly used units that have no textures, and then those of us who'd rather spend our money elsewhere could use poser to render out both sides of one of our hi-poly models, then use one of several 3rd party programs out there to convert the two side-view renders into textures for the generic units, since, as DP II said most of the detail stuff will be textures, and all we'd need is a basic low-poly pikeman, 2-handed swordsman, swordsman with shield, etc with different textures, but I'd still rather have smooth, high-detail 2D graphichs that blocky, low-detail 3D graphics.

Just my $.02

 

[Kal-el]

Don't ive up on CIV before it is even out of the box. That's just silliness. It is impossible to make a fair judgement on the game before you have even played it, simply based on assumptions and hearsay. If that's all you have, then I'm afraid you're gonna get thrown out of court.

We still have a lot of work ahead of us, it's true, but there are a lot of very competent members of this community working with Firaxis to make sure they get it right. True the way it is currently set up the tools needed to do any serious unit animating cost $3,000.00, but Firaxis is working on that. That's all I'm going to say for now.

I just think it is a little premature to be making any judgements on whether or not you anyone is going to be buying CIV or sticking solely with CIII at this point. Heck, all the reviews have been by and large positive. Granted it's new and different from what we are used to with CIII, but CIII was a lot different than CII and everybody here seems to think they did an 'ok' job with CIII. Of course I seem to recall a lot of us having issues with certain aspects of CIII, and now all of a sudden it is being hailed as the be-all-and-end-all.

 

[Neomega]

Someone mentioned that civ III is in it's unit making golden age:

It is around 5 or 6 years since Civ III's release. In 5 or 6 years, we may see yet another unit making golden age, but I assure you it will not be for Civ III.


If you can imagine for a second those tiny 2d sprite graphics, and how they compare to the graphics of games in 2010, I think you might see that the world is moving on from the horse to the automobile.

I think Civ IV sounds great. Moddable A.I.? This means all those crazy units that cannot be done in civ III because the AI cannot handle them, will be an available option!.

People say things about the graphics taking away from gameplay. A moddable AI is really the icing on a great looking cake. Unprecedented in Civ's 3 title history.

Really, throughout the history of Civ..... has Sid ever let you down? Or has he continued to exceed your expectations?

 

[Dom Pedro II]

Seems to me that the anti-Civ4 people don't really have much to base it on but a sort of vague superstition... I mean, read through the extensive article on this website... with virtually all public info on Civ4 compiled in one place. If the graphics is the only issue, then it's something I'm willing to deal with...

Simply put: I CANNOT DO WHAT I WANT WITH CIV3. I have hopes for Civ4. I also have hopes for Steph's game, but I mean... it could be a very long time before that's really playable. Of course, I'll lend help where I can to that.

 

[Kal-el]

in the meantime Dom, I would love to see some more of those units you were working on roll off the assembly line.

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

Especially a certain Aztek Rifleman.....

 

[Steph]

My concerns with Civ4 are not only the graphics, but also the gameplay.

I have ideas for SSS, with things like different scales for the game (strategical, operational, tactical), a different approach to exploration, population expansion, research, different way to handle resource...

I don't know if I'll be able to make it work.

But I know Civ4 gameply will remain relatively close to CivIII on that aspect, even if it's scriptable and easily moddable, I still think if you don't include some concepts in the core of the game, if will be hard to add in a mod.

 

[Dom Pedro II]

Yeah, I finished the Aztec Rifleman, but then it turned out it wasn't working when I tried to convert it to an animation... for whatever reason, I was having problems with the palettes. A real catastrophe that was. I did try though.

But yeah, I'm working on some new goodies... even some stuff I haven't previously mentioned



I also found this:

The Talking Parrot Forums - ModMaker It's used in Pirates! (which uses the gamebryo engine) to make new skins for existing geometries. I'm trying to find out about Empire Earth 2 units to try and see how they mod new units into the game.

Understanding how these games work will help us understand how Civ4 will work and prepare ahead of time.

I figure if the game has like 50 unique unit geometries, the possibilities once different skins are applied are massive. Then slight changes to existing geometries (if we have access to the 3DS models) could make even more possibilities.

I mean, just to give you an idea of the variety that texture can bring, most of my units use exactly the same tunic with different textures applied to it...

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

Seems to me that the anti-Civ4 people don't really have much to base it on but a sort of vague superstition... I mean, read through the extensive article on this website... with virtually all public info on Civ4 compiled in one place. If the graphics is the only issue, then it's something I'm willing to deal with...

Simply put: I CANNOT DO WHAT I WANT WITH CIV3. I have hopes for Civ4. I also have hopes for Steph's game, but I mean... it could be a very long time before that's really playable. Of course, I'll lend help where I can to that.

hmm I've been following this thread - lots of good points in here. Personaly I am looking forward to see what is under the hood of Civ4, rather than being looking forward to play it (but my opinion on what has been revealed this far should be known by now from my comments on the preview thread- not very positive by any mean).

Dom, you mention people's issues with the graphics. Yes, I do have problems with these also, yet the point about the graphics is far more complex than just the Warcraft-Style looks. Moreover Firaxis is basing the hype for Civ4 mostly upon its new engine looks- and this is where I think they are (yet again) making a huge mistake. The game has never been about looks- but depth.

So by starting off with looks we are starting off from the wrong waypoint, from the end and working ourselves up to the start of the priority list, gameplay, technology, diplomacy, then should come the units, then resources and terrain, and somewhere in the back of the truck the overall engine look should be set. It's something so basic that I fear there is nobody at Firaxis that has had any business education. The right order of priorities does matter: Like when ones bakes a cake: If you start off with the icing but haven't got the base ready then the cake will become somewhat different than the recipe suggests (to say the least)- a culinaric monster just like Master of Orion III, where also priorities were being addressed in the wrong order. The result of this spoilt "cookie" was hemorragic fever and indigestion (at least I got one when I was playing it after having waited for it for over 3 years).

This said I must note: I am not what has been called an "anit-civ iv" entity. I am a pro-civ iv one, however, I would rather see a game that doesn't look too much like its own clone... and what I have seen this far just doesn't cut it- but I'm sure my six-year-old nephew will like it once he'll be into reading- after all he likes pretty much everything that looks like a toy world.

Graphicaly I'd rather welcome a paperdoll editor (which we won't get) with a hybrid system, allowing either 3d or traditional animation import (which we also won't get). Gameplay-wise I am already more than dissapointed, as only a few good features have been recicled from other Civ games while a far greater number of good features have bastardised beyond recognition.

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

Yeah, I finished the Aztec Rifleman, but then it turned out it wasn't working when I tried to convert it to an animation... for whatever reason, I was having problems with the palettes. A real catastrophe that was. I did try though.

But yeah, I'm working on some new goodies... even some stuff I haven't previously mentioned



I also found this:

The Talking Parrot Forums - ModMaker It's used in Pirates! (which uses the gamebryo engine) to make new skins for existing geometries. I'm trying to find out about Empire Earth 2 units to try and see how they mod new units into the game.

Understanding how these games work will help us understand how Civ4 will work and prepare ahead of time.

I figure if the game has like 50 unique unit geometries, the possibilities once different skins are applied are massive. Then slight changes to existing geometries (if we have access to the 3DS models) could make even more possibilities.

I mean, just to give you an idea of the variety that texture can bring, most of my units use exactly the same tunic with different textures applied to it...

Man that stinks...oh well

What was with your many months after Christmas away from the forums? Playing WoW perhaps?

 

[Dom Pedro II]

hmm I've been following this thread - lots of good points in here. Personaly I am looking forward to see what is under the hood of Civ4, rather than being looking forward to play it (but my opinion on what has been revealed this far should be known by now from my comments on the preview thread- not very positive by any mean).

Dom, you mention people's issues with the graphics. Yes, I do have problems with these also, yet the point about the graphics is far more complex than just the Warcraft-Style looks. Moreover Firaxis is basing the hype for Civ4 mostly upon its new engine looks- and this is where I think they are (yet again) making a huge mistake. The game has never been about looks- but depth.

So by starting off with looks we are starting off from the wrong waypoint, from the end and working ourselves up to the start of the priority list, gameplay, technology, diplomacy, then should come the units, then resources and terrain, and somewhere in the back of the truck the overall engine look should be set. It's something so basic that I fear there is nobody at Firaxis that has had any business education. The right order of priorities does matter: Like when ones bakes a cake: If you start off with the icing but haven't got the base ready then the cake will become somewhat different than the recipe suggests.

This said I must note: I am not what has been called an "anit-civ iv" entity. I am a pro-civ iv one, however, I would rather see a game that doesn't look too much like its own clone... and what I have seen this far just doesn't cut it- but I'm sure my six-year-old nephew will like it once he'll be into reading- after all he likes pretty much everything that looks like a toy world.

Graphicaly I'd rather welcome a paperdoll editor (which we won't get) with a hybrid system, allowing either 3d or traditional animation import (which we also won't get). Gameplay-wise I am already more than dissapointed, as only a few good features have been recicled from other Civ games while a far greater number of good features have bastardised beyond recognition.

Well, I don't really agree with this assessment. I didn't see the 3D graphics being "hyped up". Yes, they were mentioned right off the bat.. and I think this was done for two very obvious reasons: 1. to entice new people who are used to 3D graphics games, and 2. to brace the rest of us.

I mean, let's face it, they're damned either way. We slam them for making a big deal about the graphics, but at the same time, if the graphics had been made a footnote and they just sort of said: "Oh... and btw... all the work you guys did for Civ3.... won't be convertible" we'd have had a fit about it that they didn't give us a proper head's up.

Just because the graphics was the first thing we heard about doesn't mean it was the first thing they started with.

And I really don't see that much stuff got the axe in Civ4. Seems to me that only pollution and civil disorder really got cut, but even then, they've been remodeled, not removed completely. I've seen a lot of additions and very few subtractions thus far in Civ4 based on the reports.

To me, Civ3 was the disappointment... as far as I've seen, Civ4 can only go up. And with the real power of the code in our hands, even if the out-of-the-box version isn't up to par, I'm sure we can make it the best thing out there...

 

[Dom Pedro II]

Man that stinks...oh well

What was with your many months after Christmas away from the forums? Playing WoW perhaps?

Playing EVE Online actually... which has also been losing a lot of players to WoW

 

[El Justo]

Civ4 can only go up

...but it appears that it is going in the opposite direction. less total civs and a simplified cobat system is regression if you ask me...

 

[Dom Pedro II]

...but it appears that it is going in the opposite direction. less total civs and a simplified cobat system is regression if you ask me...

The number of civs to me is not really an issue... as for the simplified combat, I suggest you go back and read the articles... combat is anything but simplified. The attack/defense factors have been removed, but now there's actual sense behind unit interaction! You get bonuses for one unit class against another... you get unit promotions. You get different kinds of attacks... artillery is better. I completely disagree that combat is simplified.

Many have pointed out before that attack and defense values were never really realistic anyway. To me, this is a vast improvement over all previous Civ games.

 

[El Justo]

this is your opinion dom pedro II...my take is that it's simplified despite the added features. personally, i like the A/D calculations but that's just me.

less civs = less options for scenarios

i could care less about the epic style games. global scenarios are doomed for civ 4.

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

Of course they started with the graphics and the engine as with every game you need to start off with the engine cuz that is the core of the game. I said priority: I.e. how much effort will be spent on making the graphics- this is what is pissing me off- not what they start with phyisicaly (I know, the way I wrote about it isn't the most straighforward one). but what seems to be their priority in putting effort into.

Exactly because most "little people out there" (hi kids ) care more about the looks and if their favourite leaderhead will be in. Those don't really matter, may they be 3d or whatever. But I want a game that has at least similar ammount of effort put into gameplay and depth. While I agree with your statement that combat is NOT oversimplified, I must disagree in other areas, namely when intercting with global effects such as corruption, luxuries, pollutions, unhappyness, et al. The wrote themselves they were removing these in their prior incarnation as "so many people could not cope" with these. Well then maybe those people were either playing the wrong game for themselves or perhaps too young, or what do I know... fact is that at that stage, with Civ4 being announced for launch within this year it is a bit late behind the priority schedule to not having more than a vague idea how to re-implement these in a good fashion... its such slip-ups that discourage me, as Firaxian history has shown that great ideas, if not able to be implemented as they were envisioned will end up being left out entirelly and without replacement...

Less Units is another issue- since you seem to claim they are going customer oriented in chosing the engine and all, and I see proove in the fact they are aiming at remodeling the global effects in a more "less-depth" manner for even simpler minds to be able to have fun, why aren't we given, as in EVERY other 3d game, Civ-Specific units?... or at least a simple paperdoll editor :| I can tell you why (hey, I always knew my studies would pay off someday): They want to make money out of selling us uni updates And this is where Firaxis remains traditionaly cheap.

 

[Dom Pedro II]

this is your opinion dom pedro II...my take is that it's simplified despite the added features. personally, i like the A/D calculations but that's just me.

less civs = less options for scenarios

i could care less about the epic style games. global scenarios are doomed for civ 4.

You know it seems like you want there to be something wrong... like you want Civ4 to be bad...

Global scenarios are doomed??? Have you ever played a Civ2 scenario compared to Civ3? It's Civ3 scenarios that were doomed... doomed because they didn't have the event language of Civ2. And Civ4, with it's XML-based scripting abilities, will have something that will even make Civ2's script look inflexible by comparison. Civ2 scenarios cannot be touched by Civ3 scenarios and they only had seven civs playable at once.

And there's only 18 civs in the game... it doesn't say that only 18 civilizations can be used at once... and besides, what about Civ3? It started out with 16!

I mean, considering all of the new features, less civs available is really a small price to pay... I mean, what you're demanding is that in addition to all of the new stuff... building a game from scratch, you want new city styles, new leaderheads, new units, new flags... as if they do not already have enough stuff to do. I am SURE we will be quite capable of tossing new civs in there as we please.

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

this is your opinion dom pedro II...my take is that it's simplified despite the added features. personally, i like the A/D calculations but that's just me.

less civs = less options for scenarios

i could care less about the epic style games. global scenarios are doomed for civ 4.

They still didn't say up to what level Civ4 is going to be moddable, with regards to Civ numbers- would interest me mightily since I'd also like to know how many civs can be selected for MP games (I hate the fact that only 8 civs can be used in Civ3s MP).

I also liked the old calculus- was easier to tweak, yet this system was enough as a base to have added boni to unit types- hell Civ 1 had it - you cannot tell me they couln't have put it into Civ3...

I'm an epic fan