Commander Bello said:
Well, this was one of the weakest arguments I've ever read.
Civ3 had a well known graphics engine, and quite some people were familiar with adding new graphics for it. If, as your statement indicates, the switch to 3D adds nothing but removes nothing, then were is the point in switching?
It's not a weak argument. It's just a way to remind that graphics and gameplay aren't opponents, and that better graphics != worse gameplay.
Because THIS argument ("if it's looking better, it's playing worse") is utterly stupid, and I very often see it.
My point saying this, is that if someone wants to protest about the graphics, it's not by saying that they damage the gameplay, because they do not have any detrimental effects on it.
What exactly is the point which you constantly try to miss.
Neither 2D nor 3D is bad by itself, yet you may implement the one or the other in a good or in a bad way.
This is a point you seems to not understand : 2D is worse than 3D by itself.
Contrary to what you try to indicate, most people complaining about the graphics of Civ4 are NOT complaining just because it is 3D, they are complaining since they miss the added value as not much use seems to be made from the potential of 3D, nor from the potential a new graphics philosophy could offer.
That's not what I see. What I see is just the three types of peopel I described earlier :
- the ones just screaming about "I don't care about graphics, gimme gameplay !", like if one prevented the others.
- the ones just taking a snobbish attitude "good graphics are for n00bs and idiots, we are intelligent gamers, so we must have ugly graphics".
- the ones who just don't want anything to change "2D was good enough for Civ 1, 2 and 3, so let's keep the 2D !".
Additionnally, I fail to see why the fact that the potential of 3D is not used, is in any way an argument to say "let's not switch to 3D, let's keep the 3D"...
Again, a very weak statement.
Your socalled reasons are just a listing of "but it is 3D, man!" without much flesh at the bones.
The argument that 3D would be more immersive already already is invalidated taking into account that we still are looking on a 2D display.
Wow, and you talk about a weak argument ?
I'll answer the first part by saying : yes, it's 3D, man, and it IS inherently better than 2D, because it has VOLUME.
I'll answer the second part with this :
If 3D is the same as 2D because we see it on a 2D display, I wonder why there is even this discussion about the 3D in the game.
Gosh, this was a huge display of bad faith here, man. Who do you think you're fooling ?
What could be said about the 3D-prophets as well, as they sometimes seem to think of themselves as some kind of avantgarde with more insight and a clearer view...
No. We just don't scream in horror because something might actually looks better.
I fail to see anything wrong with that.
At the bottom line:
Your arguments in favour of 3D list some technical features, which are not to be disputed.
Anyway, technical features have no value by themselves. They could have a value, if the use of them would add to the gameplay, and this is exactly what I miss.
Zooming and rotating may make sense in a game where immediate inter-action is needed, such as in flight or racing simulators, FPS's and so on.
This immediate interaction in a TBS per definitionem not only is not needed, it just doesn't take place at all.
Therefore, I still don't see the use of it.
Once again : it looks better, and it considerably improve immersion.
These are justifications by themselves. Having actual USE of the 3D to enhance gameplay would be much better, of course. But even lacking that, having a better-looking and more immersive game is sufficient enough to justify using 3D graphics.
It is true, though, that we will have to make use of it (and will have to provide enough cpu- and graphics power) as the graphical set-up of the game forces us to do so. The announced WYSIWYG forces us to do so, as the "little carts" are visible only at a certain zoom level, just to give one example. Another example is the changed angle at lower zoom levels.
But, all of this could have been avoided with a different design, even if using 3D.
Thus, we are forced to make use of it, but there is no value added. It is just a required action, due to design.
Design is independant of the graphic rendering. I don't have any problem with someone saying he dislike the design/interface/whatever.
What I'm stuffed with and tired of, is the amount of stupid complains that plenty of people throw at the game simply because it looks better and use 3D. These complaints are baseless, useless and only show narrow-mindedness.
The complaints about gameplay, design, interface, ideas and the like, I welcome them with open arms.