Lmao

[Syagrius]

Ok, for one: If somebody doesn't LIKE the graphics of CIV4, that's a matter of taste and nobody can blame him for simply not liking them - neither can he blame anybody for not making everything after his liking

HOWEVER, the CIV4 graphics are, in comparison to your average nowadays games, "below average" AT BEST. No, really. Look at those units: One couldn't believe how many years of development and increase in computing power lie between THIS and that oldtimer game "Warzone 2100" (AFAIK the first true 3D strategy game ever - and it HAD real 3D terrain, as opposed to CIV). It is, frankly, UNBELIEVABLE, how a TURN BASED game can slow down that much because of those measly rendered low-poly figurines?!? I mean, seriously, if you knew CIV4 only, wouldn't you think there could never, ever be something like a real-time strategy game with such graphics or, Christ, an ego-shooter? But, believe it or not: Those games do exist, and they have FAR superior graphics handled in REAL time. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

But, ok, as was said: We don't play CIV because of the graphics. THAT'S RIGHT, FOLKS - so would please all those who say: "yeah, STFU, CIV4 is cool b/c the graphics are MUCH better!" stop wailing? It's not the point. Most of us long-time CIV players have been playing CIV in spite of the old-fashioned grahics or sometimes even BECAUSE of them.

Let's get to the point: "3D adds so much to gameplay". Well said. Please let me ask: WHAT? What, in Heaven's name, does 3D ADD, the way it's implemented? I don't see it. CIV is as 2-dimesnional as ever, it's just SHOWN in 3D. So much for "gameplay improvement by 3D". And, no, it doesn't help at all that you now have all those low-poly buildings directly on the map, because those old-fashioned icons for barracks, docks & airports were 20 times easier to read. So, in fact, 3D has a BAD influence on gameplay (aside from making the game sluggish beyond recognition in the late game).

As far as I am concerned: Right now I play CIV4 with the lowest graphics options possible, no animations / effects, and I hardly ever zoom - for all practical effect, I play it 2D. Not that it would be as smooth as CIV3, but at least I have a bit less of distraction from the important map information.

Every single man-hour that went into the development of that fully redundant 3D engine could have gone into real gameplay issues instead. I do realize that at some points there really are those tiny, but helpful improvements we all have been craving for (e.g. the new way the build queue is handled, or the mini-city manager you can reach from city advisor). Thanks for that, really. I realize, too, however, that there are at least as many new problems, badly designed aspects and outright bugs that I can only explain by saying: "Too much emphasis on the graphics".

To sum it up: Firaxis always has been a company with a superb know-how of how to do brilliant strategy games. They in a way always sucked at graphics, but we loved their games anyway. With CIV4, they left their home terrain and did instead their best on foreign ground. As we see: "Their best", as far as graphics are concernd, quite obviously isn't much - they still suck at graphics. Sadly, with CIV4, they don't make up for it with a gameplay and engine / interface that lets you forget about that.

Very well said

 

[Randle]

OK my POV is that "We dont play CIV for graphics!" is not the main argument, just that it's a point to note. The main argument - which strangely hasn't been pointed out as much - is that they don't want the game to be too resource-hungry and for a game with as much happening at once as CIV, this is all too easy; seeing how many people with below required systems are trying to play the game (not that many, but significant), I think this is a rather valid decision.

Also I don't believe this is their first game with 3D. Firaxis also worked on Pirates! (the recent one), and IMHO some of that team must also be in the team creating CIV.

It takes enough of my cpu and memory to compute the each turn in the later years; if the game were more graphic intensive it would be unplayable for a lot of people. (1.3 GHz Athlon, 128 Geforce 4Ti graphics, 512 MB RAM).

Think of it like a car manufacturer. They could have made a Corvette. It'd be beautiful, fast and have every feature imaginible, but only a few people would be able to use it. Instead they chose to make a product which is affordable, fun, and decent looking enough that you're not afraid to park it in your driveway.

 

[DemonDeLuxe]

@phalzyr:

Again and again I hear that argument: "And just how many objects are in memory at one time in that game?"

This is the utterly wrong question.

The right question would be:

"How many objects which actually add to the gameplay are in the memory?".

As far as CIV4 is concerned, not that many. I fail to see the reason why any developer could come up with the crazy idea to show all cities as an assembly of roughly modelled buildings which are not recognizable at all if you don't take the time to zoom in, forcing a huge amount of polygon calculations when zoomed out and showing lots of cities at once. Sorry, I don't get it. Who wants that? What is it good for? Inhowfar does it support the concept of Civilization? As it is, the graphics are NEITHER beautiful enough so that a lack of performance could be forgiven NOR clear enough to give you a good overview NOR quick enough for a smooth interaction . Seriously, the maps of CIV3 and even CIV2 were MUCH easier to read. And that's what maps are all about!

No serious CIV player WOULD want the buildings or units to be 10 times as detailed if it costs even more performance. What I expect is a map that tells me where my cities are and the most important information about them, where my units are and again the most important information. If one can smuggle in some mooing cows without negative impact on performance, then so be it, I'm not against atmosphere at all. But I'm not willing to have mooing cows INSTEAD OF a crisp interface and that's exactly what we get. Quite ugly cows at that.

 

[FuzzyWeasel]

I realize, too, however, that there are at least as many new problems, badly designed aspects and outright bugs that I can only explain by saying: "Too much emphasis on the graphics".

To sum it up: Firaxis always has been a company with a superb know-how of how to do brilliant strategy games. They in a way always sucked at graphics, but we loved their games anyway. With CIV4, they left their home terrain and did instead their best on foreign ground. As we see: "Their best", as far as graphics are concernd, quite obviously isn't much - they still suck at graphics. Sadly, with CIV4, they don't make up for it with a gameplay and engine / interface that lets you forget about that.

DemonDeLuxe sums up my opinion beautifully. I still respect Firaxis as a company... I still think Sid makes damn great games... I like Civ4 despite my frustrations... but stick to what you are good at and what your customers have made you the comapny you are because of.

-Weasel

 

[MattJek]

WTH!!!!! is this thread starter talking about... this game has awesome graphics. Are we all talking about the same game here??

 

[Varelse]

I am fine with the graphics, not great but pretty good, and the game is very enjoyable in my opinion. Their are issues that I hope will be addressed in a patch but that is true of just about every PC based game nowadays.

 

[Padma]

Moderator Action: Thread closed. I started reading this, and handing out warnings, but I saw it was already too far gone. I'm logging warnings for just about every poster on the first two pages in this thread ...
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889