Transition to 3D?

[Kamamura]

To me, it seems an extremely unfortunate decision (probably dictated by some marketing "expert").

What does 3d representation bring to the game? you use isometric view of a board with icons. It's like 3D chessboard in Fritz - it's more confusing, the graphics will be uglier (a beautiful, hand-painted icon always beats a blocky polygon figure), the game will be more demanding resource-wise.

Look at Kohan 2 - 3d graphics did it no good.

 

[The_Architect]

agreeeeeeeeeee!
Instead of making it 3d they shud have made it a bit more realistic in terms of gameplay and should have gone for really huge maps so that even with japan/england one could have a lot of cities and be a powerful civ even though small.

 

[Crimso]

What does 3d representation bring to the game?

Better animations. A few dozen viewpoints as opposed to two. Dynamic lighting. A more alive, vibrant representation of your civ (the windmills n'stuff). Basically, a more immersive experience, something that has been missing from previous civs, in my opinion.

(a beautiful, hand-painted icon always beats a blocky polygon figure)

I used to think like that, back in 1997.

the game will be more demanding resource-wise.

We live in the 21st century. Everything is getting more demanding resource-wise. If all this is about is

When Civ III first came out, I had the same opinion of its graphics as I did of it predecessors: they do the job. Now, I think Civ IV will actually have some what superlative graphics compared to the last three. How many more Civs do you want with obsolete visuals?

Look at the bombardment sprite that shows up in the targeted tile in C3C. It looks like a puff of smoke, and the unit it damages doesn't even move. When tile improvements are hit they just dissapear. Then, go look at the explosions in Pirates(!), to get an idea of how Civ IV will look. Kablammo! Shreds of wood and bodies flying everywhere! Noticable damage to the target! Combine that with better sound, and you feel the explosion. C3C is looking pretty piss-poor, isn't it?

agreeeeeeeeeee!
Instead of making it 3d they shud have made it a bit more realistic in terms of gameplay and should have gone for really huge maps so that even with japan/england one could have a lot of cities and be a powerful civ even though small.

You are talking about something completely different. Get a brain.

 

[Crazy Eskimo]

Better animations. A few dozen viewpoints as opposed to two. Dynamic lighting. A more alive, vibrant representation of your civ (the windmills n'stuff). Basically, a more immersive experience, something that has been missing from previous civs, in my opinion.

All that is great, if you actually want that stuff. Me, I find the camera angles that are higher than isometric dizzying and that are lower restrictive. Pretty much goign to keep it in iso. The "alive and vibrant" part is really going to depend on how much they clean up the graphics prior to release. As they are now, Civ III is more vibrant.

Sure, the 3-d graphics of some videogames are more immersive that the graphics of Civ III. But the graphics I've seen so far for cIV aren't on par with those games. I hope they really improve the graphics prior to launch, because right now, it's all really disappointing.

Of course, to be fair to the Firaxis team, this is their first time doing Civ in 3d (Yes, I know about Pirates, don't think it helps all that much), so it's going to be a little rough around the edges. I don't think it's reasonable to expect a polished 3-d world on the first iteration; we'll probably get what we're expecting in the Civ V.

When Civ III first came out, I had the same opinion of its graphics as I did of it predecessors: they do the job. Now, I think Civ IV will actually have some what superlative graphics compared to the last three. How many more Civs do you want with obsolete visuals?

Look at the bombardment sprite that shows up in the targeted tile in C3C. It looks like a puff of smoke, and the unit it damages doesn't even move. When tile improvements are hit they just dissapear. Then, go look at the explosions in Pirates(!), to get an idea of how Civ IV will look. Kablammo! Shreds of wood and bodies flying everywhere! Noticable damage to the target! Combine that with better sound, and you feel the explosion. C3C is looking pretty piss-poor, isn't it?

See, I look at the current screenshots and videos and still have the same feel for the 3-d graphics as I did for Civ III graphics when they came out. Don't really feel any less "get the job done" about the 3d graphics.

As for the explosions graphics, you do realize this isn't a 2-d versus 3-d issue, right? Firaxis could have programmed a "reaction to bombard" animation in 2-d had they wanted to. They choose not to, and that's the reason for the difference, not the 2-d images.

If Civ IV incorporates more of these "reaction to bombard" animations than Civ III did, kudos to Firaxis. But Civ III still looks plenty nice to me.

You are talking about something completely different. Get a brain.

You know, there's nothing like an uncalled-for personal insult to really make us respect the insultor's intelligence.(/sarcasm)

 

[Crimso]

As for the explosions graphics, you do realize this isn't a 2-d versus 3-d issue, right? Firaxis could have programmed a "reaction to bombard" animation in 2-d had they wanted to. They choose not to, and that's the reason for the difference, not the 2-d images.

There is no way anyone is going to convince me that 2D sprites of explosions are better than 3D ones. So my first issue is that continuing to use 2D graphics would result in crappy explosions, among other things.

Yes, I know that a "reaction to bombard" animation would be possible in 2D, but what would be the point? Teeny tiny explosions hitting teeny tiny sprites do not convey the power and force of a bombardment. 3D graphics can do it much, much better.

You know, there's nothing like an uncalled-for personal insult to really make us respect the insultor's intelligence.(/sarcasm)

I told him to get a brain because he was hijacking the thread, turning a discussion on graphics into one on gameplay. Your reply has very little to do with 2D vs 3D, but rather expectations of the 3D graphics, an issue where we probably agree 80%. I really can't tell because your post is so unfocused.

I think you only replied so you could conclude by deriding me for insulting someone. Not only has your own painfully akward *zing* put you in the same boat as I ("insultors"), but you have also hijacked the thread. I really don't see why you feel the need to defend The_Architect.

Anyone else think Civ IV should be in 2D? Doesn't matter.

 

[Akka]

3D is more lively, more credible, more immersive and more fleshy.
2D was good ten years ago, because the computers couldn't handle polygon-rich models.

Now that we have machines able to do that since several years, it's really not too soon.
3D all the way, I'm tired of bidimensionnal, flat, volumeless worlds.

 

[Wolfwood]

3D has no necessary place in a strategy game, but it will attract new players such as some of the above respondents ( ) to the game.

I fear that it will restrict the game (too much resources put on how things seem rather than how they work), but I hope that it will bring us a more immersive experience with all that we have learned to expect from Civ games and more. Time will tell.

 

[mastertyguy]

Welcome to CFC

What does 3d representation bring to the game?

Lots of money!

 

[Napo981]

GAME FIRST!!!!

Then 3D graphics... if it's not going to set back the whole game.

Anyway, who plays civ for graphics . Raise your hand !! Those who wants only graphics will never never play a game like civ, anyway.

Personnally, I prefer 3D graphics, for the same reasons many people share in this thread. More if they're well implented. However, I feel uneasy about them up to now, but I must wait to play civ4 before giving my final opinion. I feel they've implanted them the wrong way.

I just hope they did spend more time on the game than on graphics. Because civ isn't perfect, even if it's IMO the BEST game ever made.

If earlier eras are well made, later ones lack the complexity of today's commerce and diplomatic relationships .

Time will answer us.

 

[mastertyguy]

Lots of money!

Lots of money for them, less for us!

 

[GoodGame]

It seems the goal is to market turn-based to the RTS people by secretly switching their RTS game with one that looks and feels RTS.

 

[JavalTigar]

GoodGame hit the nail on the head. I personally play both, but I prefer turn based games and classic RPG. I have crappy hand eye coordination so I don't understand why game developers think every game should require it.

 

[Akka]

It seems the goal is to market turn-based to the RTS people by secretly switching their RTS game with one that looks and feels RTS.

Or perhaps that not every turn-based player enjoy an archaic version of graphics ?

 

[Meleager]

Personally I think the change to 3d is long overdue. Even in the stratagy genre it is hard to find a newly released game not in 3d (or at least a good one).

There are a lot of benifits of 3d over 2d (not all of these are present in civ4):
1) Smooth zooming. 3d units can look just as good very close up as they do far away because they are rendered on the go. If you have ever zoomed in on a 2d image and seen the pixels then you know what i am talking about. In Civ this means that we now have a fully zoomed-out, ROTATING (another thing that can only be done in 3d) world.
2) 3d allows better interaction between objects. To see the extream of what i am talking about have a look at the gameplay footage for age of empires 3 over at gamespot (in fact if you are debating the move to 3d for civ 4 I highly recomend you check them out). In placticle terms this means that we can have tire tracks that "stick" to the ground (as well as ground that doesn't have to be level). Also it is possible to have cannon balls that bounce along the ground, debry that fall of buildings etc.
3) Lighting. We can now have shadows. Lighting effects that appear on on the character when the one next to them fires their rifle or walk under a tree. Possiblilties for a day / night cycle etc
4) Camera control. This is by far the most obvious feature of 3d in civ4. I'm sure that even you people adverse to 3d graphics will soon find them selves rotating the camera all over the place (no matter how much you object to this claim).

In the end 3d will upgrade civilization to the modern age (or perhaps 5 years ago). It will make civ seem more real, and emersive. As far as system rescources go... If you look at the minimum specs you will see that they are still quite low. Equal to a standard computer, pre-2000.

And yes, I do believe that fraxis is trying to steal some of the RTS market. But that doesn't bother me cause I play them as well.

(EDIT: Fixed mistakes pointed out bellow)

 

[Akka]

(I suppose you meant "it is hard to find a newly released game NOT in 3D" and "there are a lot of benefits of 3D over 2D", or else your post contradict itself ^^)

 

[777]

Without going 3d it would look like Civ3 add-on and so far I've liked 3d graphs in screenshots. Not going to 3d would be perhaps huge mistake.

 

[Commander Bello]

The decision to go for 3D is settled and will not be changed anymore, that much is clear.
Furthermore, I am pretty sure that this was mainly a marketing decision, as it will read much better on the box: "Now with a full 3D-engine, making your world really alive"

Nevertheless, from the perspective of an intensive player, 3D doesn't make that much sense.
Sure, for the first week or even for the second, it will be fun to zoom in and to see your cannons fire, see how your bowman draw their bows and all this kind of stuff.

Yet, after that phase of excitement has gone, we most probably will find ourselves busy with adjusting the zoom levels (including view angles) back and forth, since we will miss detail if too much zoomed out and we will miss overall information if too much zoomed in.
Additionally, they already admitted that 3D will have an impact on game speed. That is the reason why the huge maps are smaller now than in Civ3. In turn, this means that 3D means less flexibility.

It might not be the majority, but at least it seems to be a significant minority of players who like to play on huuuuge maps. These players have been left alone for the sake of pure "eye-candy", not adding anything to the gameplay itself. All graphical features (information-wise) which have been mentioned could have been done in 2D as well.

2D would have fit to small as well as to really gigantic maps. 3D only fits to small up to large maps. The calculation time of the cpu will ascend on bigger maps regardless of what the display is. But - and that is the point - with 3D even the graphics will slow down the game.

That for, from a player's perspective, the decision to go for 3D was a bad one.

 

[warpstorm]

There is also the fact that the publisher most likely had a very large say in the matter.

 

[Commander Bello]

There is also the fact that the publisher most likely had a very large say in the matter.

... which comes back to the marketing aspects...

3D will stay. Personally, I don't like that idea, but we will have to live with that decision.

 

[777]

I think for majority going to 3d is good thing, they like modern graph and get more equivalent to money. Perhaps for minority civ fanatics going to 3d is bad thing. Might be worng tho.