Transition to 3D?

[Meleager]

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.

Not to be picky, but if you mean that 3d will effect the time it takes for the AI to take you turn then you are wrong. You will have noticed that in civ3 the graphics "freeze" when the AI is taking their turn. I imagine the same will happen in Civ4. Essentially, due to the turn based nature of civilisation it means that the AI and the graphics do not have to be processed at the same time. So 3d will NOT effect the time it takes for an AI player's turn.

In short, the reason the maps are smaller is that 3d graphics require more memory. This is an oversimplified statement for the sake of those technically challenged, but if you want more information I may be able to explain it further.

 

[Wolfwood]

You will have noticed that in civ3 the graphics "freeze" when the AI is taking their turn. I imagine the same will happen in Civ4.

What?

You've turned off enemy unit animation?

 

[vbraun]

I've always wanted to zoom in and harass my people! And then do it again from a diffrant angle!

 

[Commander Bello]

Not to be picky, but if you mean that 3d will effect the time it takes for the AI to take you turn then you are wrong. You will have noticed that in civ3 the graphics "freeze" when the AI is taking their turn. I imagine the same will happen in Civ4. Essentially, due to the turn based nature of civilisation it means that the AI and the graphics do not have to be processed at the same time. So 3d will NOT effect the time it takes for an AI player's turn.

In short, the reason the maps are smaller is that 3d graphics require more memory. This is an oversimplified statement for the sake of those technically challenged, but if you want more information I may be able to explain it further.

With "freeze" you mean that you cannot change the extract of the map being displayed, as I assume. I agree that this might happen in Civ4 as well, yet I don't consider this as a real problem.

About the simultaneous processing of internal calculations and graphics display, I am not sure.
As with the 3D engine the whole map is alive now, changing and graphics will have to be displayed. While I agree that much of the necessary calculation as lighting and shadowing will be done by the graphics card, I am too less a technician to assess if and how much information has to be processed by the CPU, preparing information for the graphics card.
I would assume there is quite some nice traffic on the internal bus at this moment.

IF the reason for limitations of the map size would be due to the memory required to hold all information as you pointed out, this seems just to strengthen my argument.
Even if this would not be the case, I don't see a reason why huge maps shouldn't be more huge, since a lot of nowadays computers already have more than the standard 512 MB of RAM.

Therefore, I would like to kindly ask you to explain your statement a bit more. I will try to follow and understand, then.

 

[Meleager]

I will try to explain the technical stuff a bit more.

Firstly, when I say the screen "freezes" i am not referring to unit animations. I do have them turned on. You will notice however that the screen "freezes" and the mouse turns to an hourglass until the AI has figured out is move. Then it shows you it. So when i refer to "freezing" I am talking about when the AI is thinking, or during the first part of the AI's turn.

CPU - An Explanation

Now, have you ever wondered why it is that when you are playing a multi-player game (using a normal server NOT PBEM) that you are able to move your screen around when the other player is taking their turn but you can't in single player? The reason is that the computer does not have to do the thinking for a human player when they do for a AI player.

Let me split this up so it makes more sense:

YOUR TURN) The CPU does not have to think about the player's turn. This takes a huge load off of the CPU which means that the computer can spend some time to help render the screen. The end result - the screen moves around quite nicely and things animate well.

YOU BUY A CITY) Ever noticed that the game pauses (especially on large maps) when you buy a city of the AI? This is because the CPU needs to calculate the effects on trade etc. So the CPU is doing heaps of calculations and has no time to help render the map.

AI IS THINKING) You hit the enter key and the mouse cursor switches to a hourglass and the screen cannot move and some of the animations show down. This is because the CPU is spending lots of time figuring out the AI's turn and has no time left over for generating graphics.

AI MOVES) The computer has finished thinking, now all it is doing is taking the moves that it has already calculated. This is not very difficult which means the CPU has no problem is "bouncing" the screen to a different place or showing the AI slaughter your armies (or run in fear from them), with seamless animations.

MULTI-PLAYER) The CPU doesn't have to calculate AI turns. All it has to do is make the moves that the players are telling it to do. By now you should know that this is easy for it to do so it can put some effort into letting you move the screen around.

IN CIV4) If Civ4 works the same as Civ3 (which I assume it will), then the increased graphics will have no effect on the time it takes for the CPU to figure out AI turns. The reason - The CPU is NOT calculating the graphics and the AI at the same time.

MEMORY - An Exploration

Firstly a definition, MEMORY means the memory the graphics card uses, NOT the system memory. So when you get a graphics card with 128MB memory, even though you have 512MB main memory, it is the 128MB of memory that is being used.

The Main Memory is being used to store all the information that the CPU needs to make the AI calculations and run windows in the background etc.

3D inherently requires more memory than 2D because it needs more information to generate the images on the screen.

In 2D all that is needed is some information on its X and Y possessions and its colours which the graphics card can very easily display on the screen.

In 3D the computer needs to store X, Y, and Z positions, colour, as well as light positions, brightness, camera position etc (it adds up to a lot more info than 2D). Also the graphics card needs to do some processing in order to convert the 3D data into a 2D image that it can display on your 2D monitor.

To explain the CPU's role in generating graphics: the CPU tells the graphics card the X, Y, and Z positions, light etc to put in the graphics card's memory, but does not calculate it. It leaves that hard stuff to the graphics card itself. It does however have to figure out the animations (so it tells the graphics card where that workers shovel is going to be 60 times a second - resulting is smooth looking movement).

So you can see that better graphics will NOT slowdown the AI's turn. It will require more memory and work by the graphics card however, and that is the reason that the maps are smaller.

I hope you understand that long-winded explanation. If you are having trouble understanding anything then just ask.

 

[core]

i think the transition to 3d is a great idea because as the gaming industry is consistently changing games like civ in order to survive has to change with the times, cause if you look at the graphics from civ to civIII it has change alot i dont remember anybody complaining about that. Plus it allows for a lively world where you dont have to consistently go from city screen to world view just to see if anything in your city is being worked.

 

[dannyevilcat]

For everyone demanding gameplay first, graphics second: The 2D graphics were originally made in 3D, then converted to 2D. So, going 3D all the way is one less step in making graphics, making the process faster, allowing for more time and resources towards gameplay.

Again: 3D graphics = more time to work on gameplay. Change is a good thing.

 

[Leuf]

What you guys need to realize is the part of directx that is for 2D, called directdraw, stopped being developed way back with directx 7. Directx is backwards compatible so you can still call directdraw7 functions but that's it. They didn't even finish developing directdraw before deciding that no one needed it anymore because anything you can do in 2D you can do in 3D, so for example it has no built in alpha-blending ability whatsoever.

Anyone out to make a new engine since directx 7 is going to do it in 3D. You might lock the camera to one view and pretend it's 2D, but underneath it's going to be 3D.

However a 2D engine can actually do a more accurate rendering of 2D graphics than a 3D engine, because the 3D engine has to take the graphic and fit it to the destination, it ends up being not exactly what you started with. With 2D what you see is what you get. However, nobody makes 2D graphics anymore, they all use 3D modelling programs, so it really makes no difference.

Graphics sell games. If all they did was use the same engine but change everything else people on the forum would be saying hey they shouldn't be selling this as a new game, this should just be a patch that we get for free because they are just fixing the game to what it should have been in the first place. They can't win.

This is reality, deal with it. Be grateful a game like Civ can even get made at all, much less have a fit over how many dimensions it gets rendered in.

3D inherently requires more memory than 2D because it needs more information to generate the images on the screen.

In 2D all that is needed is some information on its X and Y possessions and its colours which the graphics card can very easily display on the screen.

In 3D the computer needs to store X, Y, and Z positions, colour, as well as light positions, brightness, camera position etc (it adds up to a lot more info than 2D).

Not really. You could have a very graphically demanding 2D game or a 3D game that just uses a few textures. A 3D game can render the same 2D scene with about the same resources. However the 2D game has to render lots of rectangular shapes with little help from the graphics card. The 3D game renders lots of triangular shapes with lots of help from the graphics card. So the actual stress put on the rest of the system is much less. They just add lots more stuff in, because they can.


-Leuf

 

[William Wilson]

I don't think that any resources were wasted from the transition between 2D to 3D, since making 3D is not time consuming compared to 2D. Do remember that 3D is not a new invention anymore – 3D artists are experienced and the software is very flexible. If you want to talk about resource wasting you can point your finger at certain details of the game that you would consider unnecessary like: high-res textures, trailers, animated leaders etc, but this has nothing to do with the fact that it is in 3D… You could waste just as much time in 2D.

But the thing that people are not considering is that the game will sell more copies if it is in 3D and thereby Firaxis can afford to hire more staff and thereby improving graphics and coding to the game. So that is the irony of this: Paying more attention to graphics has, most likely, improved the gameplay.

 

[warpstorm]

Anyone out to make a new engine since directx 7 is going to do it in 3D. You might lock the camera to one view and pretend it's 2D, but underneath it's going to be 3D.

Very true. The last 2D graphics for a game I worked on was actually 3D with the camera locked.

However a 2D engine can actually do a more accurate rendering of 2D graphics than a 3D engine, because the 3D engine has to take the graphic and fit it to the destination, it ends up being not exactly what you started with. With 2D what you see is what you get.

This is not tue. I can make my 2D graphics pixel perfect in the Gamebryo engine (which is the same one Civ4 will use). It's just a matter of understanding the math.

However, nobody makes 2D graphics anymore, they all use 3D modelling programs, so it really makes no difference.

Look at PopCap sometime. They make new 2D games that sell very well. In addition, most 3D games have 2D user interfaces. We still employ 2D artists for those things. Every game artist I know still has PhotoShop on their computer.

 

[Leuf]

This is not tue. I can make my 2D graphics pixel perfect in the Gamebryo engine (which is the same one Civ4 will use). It's just a matter of understanding the math.

Good to know Is it affected by the user overriding settings in the graphic card drivers?

Look at PopCap sometime. They make new 2D games that sell very well. In addition, most 3D games have 2D user interfaces. We still employ 2D artists for those things. Every game artist I know still has PhotoShop on their computer.

Well yeah, there's always some stuff that's going to be done in 2D, but your mainstream guys aren't sitting there in photoshop tweaking individual pixels of unit graphics to get them perfect. And my own civ clone is using 2D so I know there's at least me out there, but I don't count for anything


-Leuf

 

[josephstalin]

It is a fortunate decision. Marketing expert was right. 3D is more modern, than 2D. Not a lot of good games are 2D now. Change is good.

 

[Darwin420]

Personally, I am excited about the new 3D engine. I don't think it will detract from the overall strategy and gameplay, and it will MOST DEFINITELY help me become more fully immersed in the world. It will also be nice to see what buildings cities have just by looking at the map. It will be cool to see wonders on the map! Streams will flow and coastlines will be 'alive' ... really, it's quite a positive step for the series.

And about the map sizes... the only thing officially said was that the largest maps in cIV will be a little smaller than their counterparts in Civ3... seriously, why does everyone think that statements means the HUGE maps in cIV will be the equivilant of the 'standard' Civ3 map (or even large)??

 

[doronron]

I remember the dozens of threads on Apolyton in the months before Civ3 came out, complaining about the new "style" then, as well. Where Civ3's graphics were once a source of derision coupled with a desire to retain the look of Civ2, they are now held in high regard, equal to or better than the presentation of the previous games. The issue here reads more like a fear of change rather than anything truly wrong with Firaxis' decision on the game's look. I expect that with the impending release of Civ5, many devotees will look back on Civ4's graphics with a sense of nostalgia.

 

[toh6wy]

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.

If only that were actually true... My Windows computer is a standard model from 2001, and even after upgrading its RAM, it still doesn't quite meet Civ 4's minimum requirements (in graphics card and possibly Ghz).

 

[Arkalius]

I like the idea of 3D. It looks nice. There are a lot of fans here that are happy with the older 2D style graphics, sure, but if the franchise is going to continue on strong, it needs to continue to build a bigger fanbase. These days it's harder to attract new people with older 2D graphics.

I think the switch to 3D adds a lot to the game in the way of immersion. At any rate I doubt that the developers would let the switch to 3D undermine their efforts to make a good game. In fact, the switch to 3D makes development of art assets much easier. With Civ3 they developed most of the graphics in 3D and then made them 2D. With this version they don't have to do that extra laborious step. Make a change to the texture or the model and plug it right in, instead of having to re-create dozens of sprites of the object after every art change.

 

[Dale]

I look forward to 3D!

It leads the way to being able to "walk the streets" and a proper spherical world in Civ 5.

Dale

 

[LionQ]

Transition to 3D? It'll be great.

 

[remconius]

I dont think they neglected gameplay.

They improved the game and the graphics. After playing you will get used to it very fast, just like civ 3.

 

[LionQ]

I dont think they neglected gameplay. ...

I'm sure they didn't.