Units are too small

[mag827]

I think the problem is not that the units are too small, but that they blend in too well with the city, almost like they are camouflaging themselves to escape from enemy troops. To make them stand out, the units could have some parts painted with the color representing their country. I think that will work.

 

[Leprechaune]

Oh, sorry, I must have stumbled onto the civwhinerscentre forum by mistake?! Man, all some people seem to do here at the moment is whinge and whine-its getting so friggen frustrating It's always 'the units are too big', or 'the units are too small', or 'I don't like multi-unit representation', or 'I don't like the colours'. Sheessssh, they are just graphics people, and stills never do video game graphics any justice IMO-especially not 3D graphics.
Now, if you want to debate the real meat of the game-like combat, civics, diplomacy and trade or religion-then I would be happy to do so. If graphics are what are so important to you people, then by all means go and play a FPS!!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Hehehe... Well, I don't expect that you've read every one of my posts in every one of these graphics complaint threads. But if you had, you'd know this thread was an attempt to mock the silliness of their complaints... Apparently it was taken literally and I figured it would be fun to play along.

Herr Doktor: As far as Civ4 goes right now, the number of units shown represent that units health and therefor will not change based on the zoom level being used.

 

[warpstorm]

--deleted--

 

[Zurai]

Herr Doktor: As far as Civ4 goes right now, the number of units shown represent that units health and therefor will not change based on the zoom level being used.

Mmmm, not quite true as I understand it. For MOST units, yes figures = health. However, it's been specifically stated that in the formation editor you can change how many figures are displayed. Presumably large units like Battleships and Aircraft Carriers would use that functionalty to only show a single figure regardless of their health.

 

[brianshapiro]

Hehehe... Well, I don't expect that you've read every one of my posts in every one of these graphics complaint threads. But if you had, you'd know this thread was an attempt to mock the silliness of their complaints... Apparently it was taken literally and I figured it would be fun to play along.

Herr Doktor: As far as Civ4 goes right now, the number of units shown represent that units health and therefor will not change based on the zoom level being used.

Yes I knew you were trying to do this, though I don't think you really showed any of my complaints to be silly. I really find the graphics awful. I don't know why when someone criticizes the graphics they're 'whining' but when someone criticizes gameplay they're not whining. I think they're both part of a good game.

If you look at threads where there was some arguing over the graphics, a lot of them stretched out to pages, and new threads were created, because you had people argue what I find silly things like units look the same in Civilization 3, or try to otherwise defend the graphics or defend that it doesn't matter. Allow people to criticize the graphics without branding them whiners or other names.

 

[Leprechaune]

I hear ya brianshapiro...

Here's where i draw the difference.

Debate and discussion about how "Blah" is not good because "Blah" would work better or be more fun or what ever is GOOD.

Declarations of how something sucks, without presenting alternatives or possible improvements is BAD or Whining.

Perhaps not your comments specificly, but many others have come out as... The graphics look like crap and should look better.

A criticism I'd give more attention to would be more like the following...

The screenshot is visually displeasing BECAUSE the terrain texture is too bland. I think that a reasonable fix for this would be to use a blend of blah color and blah color in a more wildgrass kind of texture or blah blah blah.

I see people every day who look at art and say "Meh... I could do that!" Well, lets see it then. And not only that but do they have any appreciation for WHY it may or may not be visually pleasing? Anyone can say "I don't like it" but why start a thread when that person themselves don't even know how to improve it. (Without saying make it look like this OTHER thing someone else did)

Unit size, I felt was a silly ongoing argument because each side of the argument were just repeating themselves OVER and OVER and not coming up with compromizes or even LISTENING to what the other side what saying... Relivent questions or statements just IGNORED!

All that being said... I'm just having some fun here trying on occasion to make a point or two.

 

[Gogf]

I'm sticking to my thought that this will be scalable in game in the preferences panel.

Also, don't forget that even if it is not, this is zoomed in way to far to actually play. At a playable distance, the unit will be larger in comparison to the city, thus making it easier to see.

I do also agree with Mag827, though. Civ color on the units themselves wouldn't hurt.

 

[joethreeblah]

I'm asking for effective graphics, and multiple units don't make it for me. They don't serve any purpose other than giving some people a false sense or realism. Single units with a health bar would be better : you wouldn't have to count the soldiers each time, just the height of a bar

Generally, humans do not have to "count" objects when there are between 1 and 5 of them, or more if sorted in a familiar pattern.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, the reason I consider complaints about graphics to be whining are 3-fold.

(a) Graphics are the most subjective element of a TBS game like Civ. A lot of the people who have said they hate Civ4 graphics also say they hate Snoopy's Civ3 graphics-but love the vanilla graphics of Civ3-to which I say whatthe....?!?! Why, because I love Snoopy's graphics and loathed the vanilla graphics of Civ3 (not that it took away any of my enjoyment of the game).

(b) as alluded to in my first point, I also believe that graphics in a TBS game are the thing least likely to ruin a fans enjoyment of the game experience, thus it is the part of the game which should be the least subject to change due simply to the complaints of some fans (especially given the aforementioned subjectivity regarding graphics).

(c) graphics have been-and will probably remain-the easiest component of the civ series for fans to alter themselves. This fact, when combined with points (a) and (b) highlight why the games developers should focus as little time as possible trying to placate the graphical concerns of every single fan with an opinion on the subject-because when you try to please too many different people, you ultimately end up pleasing no-one at all!

Now if someone-upon seeing the civics options-started a thread saying how the Representative government option was too powerful and unbalanced, and ought to be changed-and gave good reasons why it is unbalanced and how it might be changed-then I would not call that whining and would probably give their calls for change my whole-hearted support.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[kryszcztov]

Generally, humans do not have to "count" objects when there are between 1 and 5 of them, or more if sorted in a familiar pattern.

Neither do they about health bars... Sorry if I used a wrong verb, I should have said "acknowledge"... The point was, it's easier to judge the health of a unit on a health bar than by considering the different soldiers in multiple units. The reason being that a health bar stores all the data in one place easy to find (near the unit), whereas multiple units have several soldiers spread around the land... Plus multiple units aren't good-looking and don't serve immersion. IMHO.

 

[Melendwyr]

Actually, the reason I consider complaints about graphics to be whining are 3-fold.

What do you consider long-winded justifications for dismissing people's concerns and opinions to be? 'Cause that looks like self-righteous whining to me.

We know you're not concerned about the graphics. We also know comments about the graphics bother you. We're not interested in going over the same ground. Just as I'm sure you feel entitled to vent your opinions about graphics complaints, those people are entitled to speak their opinions about the graphics. The differences are that they're not expressing opinions about other people's opinions and they're only doing so once.

Give it a rest.

 

[troytheface]

I think Steven King wrote about how older critics just hated his books- and then, over time, those critics died and the next group that had grown up reading his work came along and liked them. Manet's painting were severly criticized as were Cezanne's.
Thier work is still around..the critics..no one knows or cares who they were. Like it or not the artwork of this game will be around for some time while the criticism/critics will fade into oblivion- as they themselves have done nothing to be criticised about.
I say rant on - it does provide for short term entertainment- which is what this forum is kinda about-

 

[Zurai]

The differences are that they're not expressing opinions about other people's opinions and they're only doing so once.

If only that were true in even the slightest way.

 

[troytheface]

i want to write a simple "lol" to Zurai but i better add something to make it longer which i am attempting to do now by this continual typing which is in reality just an excuse to say "lol".

 

[brianshapiro]

I think Steven King wrote about how older critics just hated his books- and then, over time, those critics died and the next group that had grown up reading his work came along and liked them. Manet's painting were severly criticized as were Cezanne's.
Thier work is still around..the critics..no one knows or cares who they were. Like it or not the artwork of this game will be around for some time while the criticism/critics will fade into oblivion- as they themselves have done nothing to be criticised about.
I say rant on - it does provide for short term entertainment- which is what this forum is kinda about-

There are still plently of critics of Manet and Cezanne, especially recently since there has been a large push to recognize artists that came before them and were obscured by the critics who admired them (artists like Bouguereau, Couture, Makart, etc). Critics buried these artists into obscurity, they were removed from textbooks. Some of these critics are very well known to any art student and scholar, like Clement Greenberg, who wrote essays on kitsch and argued for the flatness of the canvas, the self-critique of modern art, and what he called opticality, and pushed Jackson Pollock's career. Others are also known but to a lesser degree, like Apollinaire. The critics of Manet and Cezanne aren't well remembered because they and their tastes were hated by this new generation of critics. But Manet and Cezanne could be (though I don't think they will) just as easily buried by another generation of critics. There are also other famous art critics and essayists in history, like John Ruskin, Johannes Winkleman (most people haven't heard of him, but his writings inspired the neo-classical movement), Sir Joshua Reynolds (also an artist himself). There are many others. The point is, there are many art critics in history whose critical essays have ended up as important as artworks themselves. That Manet's and Cezanne's critics aren't remembered--there is a reason for that.

 

[brianshapiro]

Aussie_Lurker,

I don't really think graphics are more subjective than anything else. I do actually have criticisms of the game mechanics, but I'm sure you'll disagree, because they are about on how elegant or how clumsy the game elements end up being or how realism is balanced with fun; again a matter of aesthetics. "Gameplay balance" is the easiest part of making a game, that you try to work in after you've designed the game dynamics. Some people were happy enough before culture was in the game, and some people are happy enough that they have to send out crews of settlers to clean up pollution, or that religion isn't included. You can make many versions of Civilization, and all of them balanced through playtesting.

As for the graphics, of course it matters. First of all you'll have potential players judging the game based on the graphics; there is also no real reason to create a new Civilization game without improving it in all aspects, which includes graphics. In some part the quality of the graphics are in how functional they are, which can be argued on either side, in some part in how they contribute to the atmosphere in the game. Individual players shouldn't be given the task of making their own mods just so the graphics aren't ugly to them (its NOT an 'easy task' first of all)--and I doubt that they could anyway because part of the problem in the graphics, like I've said, is how they've chosen to model and represent everything. They could have just hired a better design team for the graphics, and it would have paid off.

because when you try to please too many different people, you ultimately end up pleasing no-one at all!

I've always disagreed with this kind statement; it also goes along the lines that Soren was thinking when he said you can make a thousand different games of Civilization, that appeal to different people, so they just have to choose what they want to do.

I think you can create graphics that will please 90% of potential players, versus graphics that will please 40% of players. I also think you can create graphics that please 90% and are acceptable to the remaining 10%, rather than pleasing 40% and being detestable to 60%. The easiest way to please most people is to make obvious choices and make the graphics as plain and elegantly designed as possible.

Its the same thing with gameplay. Some want specific or unreasonable things that cater to some niche group of players and you can't please them without making a game that most hate, but you can definitely make a game that is a big sucess and acclaimed more universally because of the way its designed.

 

[troytheface]

What your suggesting is that pleasing 90% of the people is a simple thing to do- which is an interesting notion- if such were the case than there would be game success all the time- because there is a simple formula to follow- and yet when things begin to follow a formula people get bored. (Bougurereau (good example by the way)- referred to as "the Michelangelo of his times" - heroic nudes few could relate to...) these "formulas" soon become outdated (ala neo-classicism) ....
Graphic art is designed to appeal to as many people as possible but these days that is no easy task- which is why modern advertising seldom tries to appeal to "all" rather to specific groups .."plain and elegant design" takes the truth outta life and history- which is- in my experience- rarely plain or elegant. Gives me a blue tree i says! (Impressionism is always a crowd pleaser) (what is "elegant" what is "simple"- subjective)
(the civ group is probably a bear to please- a well read lot- and diversified)

 

[warpstorm]

Bruce Shelley (one of the original pair of designers to work on Civ1, and more famous for the Age of Empires series) once said that every design decision in the game will alienate some customers. You can't make them all happy.

 

[Civrules]

You can't make them all happy.

Neither should you try...

 

[brianshapiro]

What your suggesting is that pleasing 90% of the people is a simple thing to do- which is an interesting notion- if such were the case than there would be game success all the time- because there is a simple formula to follow- and yet when things begin to follow a formula people get bored. (Bougurereau (good example by the way)- referred to as "the Michelangelo of his times" - heroic nudes few could relate to...) these "formulas" soon become outdated (ala neo-classicism) ....
Graphic art is designed to appeal to the most people as possible but these days that is no easy task- which is why advertising seldom tries to appeal to "all" rather to specific groups .."plain and elegant design" takes the truth outta life and history- which is- in my experience- rarely plain or elegant. Gives me a blue tree i says! (Impressionism is always a crowd pleaser) (what is "elegant" what is "simple"- subjective)
(the civ group is probably a bear to please- a well read lot- and diversified)

I never said it was easy to do, just that it was possible. I don't think Firaxis has to choose to do some arbitrary variety of Civilization, like Soren says, just make the game better in ways that it could be better. That might make the game harder to sell in some respect, because they might not doing anything that new, but trying to narrow the design will also make it harder to sell. Over all, it was not necessary to release a Civilization 4 so soon; they could have waited until they graphics technology improved enough or they had very sharp ideas about the game design. Civilization 4 to me in many respects almost seems like a committee-driven effort to make a new Civilization game, based on different wish-lists that existed, and pushed because the company wanted to make profit off the franchise. To me, at least at this point (admittedly before playing it), it doesn't seem like it will have a very strong game design.

I personally think that Civilization 3 accomplished about the best of what could be done with the old Civilization game design--meaning it would be wasteful to make the game over again, rather than just tweak things--, and there are a few nice ideas introduced in Civilization 4, some of them I think introduced poorly some of them nicely; but to really make a new Civilization thats really worthwhile to make they'd have to change the game from the ground up. (Either that, or just release updates of the old game mainly to make use of new technology)

Frankly I don't care if Firaxis displeases 90% of people on these forums, its not a measure of how good the game is, because a lot of people sometimes on these forums I think often don't look at overall game design and demand unreasonable things (like getting rid of spearmens defeating tanks, even when it occurs 1% of the time). There are also lists of new features people want added, without a real idea of how to implement them well, imo.

Bouguereau, btw, didn't focus on heroic nudes--he tried this early in his career and moved away from it. The main body of his work was something people actually did relate to--and this was a criticism of him by the avant-garde---that he was sentimental and pandered to a common bourgeois taste. Modern art for the most part has been far less easy for people to relate to, which is something that has been defended by those who like it. His art was also not just a matter of applying formulas he learned, there were significant changes in style and focus and aesthetic; unless you believe that plain figurative art is a formula. There were charges that he was using clichés also, but he invented what became clichés. People today are looking back at academic artists and trying to revive interest in them because there was a lot they were unjustly maligned for; and figurative art is becoming more and more accepted again. There were problems with academic art and Bouguereau's art, but the avant-garde response was very hyperbolic. One of the problems was that the art market was so large at that point in history, saturated with bad quality paintings that were taken as fine art, while people didn't appreciate the accomplishments of impressionists.

Everything is judged subjectively troytheface, but the only art that survives appreciation is that it accomplishes something very well, which would include impressionism.

Anyway, the direction of Civilization 4 to me doesn't look as if its doing something that is bold and will be underappreciated, or safe and uninteresting; but just a mess. It will have some good things, some implemented well; but overall, an unnecessary game. Implementing some features like 3D before it could implement it really well.