very disappointed in graphics.

[Maniacal]

Zoom right up an archer's nose? Seriously? I know you are probably using an analogy here but still! It sounds like you were expecting Mass Effect 2 graphics. I mean, c'mon...take a moment to really think about it. This is a turn-based strategy game. Maybe if you lowered your expectations a little bit...

I don't know about DX10/11, but Mass Effect 2's graphics are mostly only highly detailed on character models. The rest of the textures get progressively lower-res. Which is fine, it still looks good, but I do notice it.

 

[sohvan]

Zoom right up an archer's nose? Seriously? I know you are probably using an analogy here but still! It sounds like you were expecting Mass Effect 2 graphics. I mean, c'mon...take a moment to really think about it. This is a turn-based strategy game. Maybe if you lowered your expectations a little bit...

I was expecting the graphics to be better than in Civilization 4, which is a 5 year old game. While the graphics in Civ 5 are better in some respects, they're also worse in a lot ways.

 

[Delgar]

Regardless of graphics quality, you could zoom in VERY close in CIV4. My expectation with the quality level in 5 is that, if you could zoom close, things would like much better and far less pixel-y. However, in this case of 5, you can't zoom in very far at all.

Yes, yes, I too would like to be able to zoom in closer. My point was that the OP seems to have overly high expectations of what the graphics should be in a turn-based strategy game. He sounds really disappointed so I'm just trying to convince him otherwise...when I should really just be playing the game!

 

[Matte979]

After 100 turns.

I have to disagree. I love the graphics specially the icons and style, I am running on DX11 max everything on a 24 inch with 8AA with detailed strategic. Everything is so much better. Terrain, Water, resources, units and buildings in your cities. Leaders are awesome, battles between units just looks great.

Its a very nice looking game. The interface is the best interface I have ever had in a game, the game plays so smooth, they have done a great job on graphics and interface.

I would say rivers are ok, they dont bother me. I am playing on large map, the map is huge.

The sound mixing is great on my new X-FI card.

Best looking TBS hands down.

 

[generalwar]

My comp can't run too well civ 5( I have demo) and graphics are suprisingly good at that low level, so, it looks like they made it to look good to people with weaker computers .

 

[lymond]

ha...me too...especially considering how slow the forums are at the moment

 

[MoonFlare]

Mediocre graphics + huge system req.+ bad AI = Bad game optimization = FAIL

 

[Tylerryan79]

I was expecting more in the graphics too. They arent terrible, but they arent what I thought theyd be. Games does look sweet though(just not how sweet I was expecting), and is a blast so far!

 

[Boris Godunov]

The graphics look decent enough for me (I never played the new Colonization, so I'm comparing to Civ IV). Didn't bowl me over, but definitely an improvement.

The rivers don't look as bad as I thought they would. When you see them flowing, they look better than what the still shots suggest. Still not spectacular.

I played for 45 turns this morning before deciding I didn't want to be fired, and I had no technical issues whatsoever--ran smooth as can be.

 

[Red Wegener]

I do, but the performance is good. Just the graphics aren't great. For instance, look at these two coastal scenes:

I just have the demo but I wish my graphics looked as good as your screenshot. The graphics on mine look like low resolution graphics. What settings should I try changing?

what video card is everyone using? I have a 1 gig 9800gt

ok, how the heck did you take a screenshot? print screen just gives me a black pic for some reason.

 

[charon2112]

I just have the demo but I wish my graphics looked as good as your screenshot. The graphics on mine look like low resolution graphics. What settings should I try changing?

what video card is everyone using? I have a 1 gig 9800gt

ok, how the heck did you take a screenshot? print screen just gives me a black pic for some reason.

I used FRAPS for the screenshots. and I'm using an HD 5770 1 gig videocard. I think the screenshot looks good because of the smaller size, that can make the gfx more crisp.

To the other posters talking about the great graphics, look at the little things, like trees. In Civ IV (from 2005) each tree was a 3d model that swayed in the wind. In Civ V, they're just painted on the tile. almost nothing moves at all. also, I feel that if we zoomed in closer it would look even worse, which is probably why they didn't include a close zoom. My expectations aren't overly high, I would like Civ V to look at least as good as Civ IV.

 

[seasnake]

I'm running the thing on Medium on my laptop and it performs very well and looks fine to me. I don't the graphics because the gameplay seems top notch.

 

[Boris Godunov]

For me, the ugliest thing is the minimap. It's featureless and just uses solid colors. The minimap in Civ IV was vastly superior. They clearly didn't put any effort to it at all in Civ V.

 

[obsolete]

I only have the demo, but graphis havent impressed me much. Everything at max too.

btw, it crashed after 10min.

Consider yourself lucky. Not only are the demo graphics very sub-par for the rediculous resources it burns off for a TURN-BASED game, but even when using the 2D view the damn thing crashes, and crashes, and crashes.

And then there are more crashes. I can see why now they delayed this PoS demo for so long.

 

[Lancor]

For me, the ugliest thing is the minimap. It's featureless and just uses solid colors. The minimap in Civ IV was vastly superior. They clearly didn't put any effort to it at all in Civ V.

Civ IV minimap was much to cluttered. They made it simple, clear and very easy to read. Just how a minimap is supposed to be.

Consider yourself lucky. Not only are the demo graphics very sub-par for the rediculous resources it burns off for a TURN-BASED game, but even when using the 2D view the damn thing crashes, and crashes, and crashes.

And then there are more crashes. I can see why now they delayed this PoS demo for so long.

You can have the biggest, badass car for like 500k € but if you can't drive, you will end in a crash with your local tree or wall.
It's the same with computers.

And it's always the same with games... people cry about crashes and how it's the developer's fault all the time, but usually it's their own fault, because they can't "drive" their computer very well.

reinstall the whole thing or even format your harddrive and reinstall your os. Check your hardware, make memory tests, HDD tests, update your drivers.
If a tested and 1.00 delivered product crashes, chances are 70-90 % that's your fault.


I've yet to see a crash in a couple of dozen turns.

 

[charon2112]

I don't mean to suggest by my thread that Civ V is a bad game. On the contrary, it's a fantastic game. I just expected more in the graphics department.

Also, I have had no crashes at all.

 

[NihilZero]

Civ 4 looked much better.

I was going to fire up the demo for another try, thinking maybe I had judged it too harshly, but I discovered that you have to sit through the entire intro movie again...no thanks. I'll play Civ 4 instead.

 

[RX2000]

The graphics in a game coming out in 2010 and supposedly utilizing DX11 effects, should be considerably better than the Civ IV expansions, which stopped in 2008, and were based on an engine from 2005. I should be blown away by the detail, I should be able to zoom right up an archers nose, and I can't. The graphics are mediocre at best.

This is Civ, not Chrysis. Its not about the graphics..... As long as the gameplay is there I could care less about what it looks like....

 

[mtrein]

The graphics look gorgeous so far... I honestly don't understand why ppl are complaining so much about it.

Civ 4 has better graphics? Oh come on now, that's like saying Mario 3 (NES) has better graphics than Super Mario (SNES).

 

[charon2112]

This is Civ, not Chrysis. Its not about the graphics..... As long as the gameplay is there I could care less about what it looks like....

shouldn't the newest version of a game, that came out 5 years after the last version, have much improved graphics? They certainly shouldn't be worse.

The graphics look gorgeous so far... I honestly don't understand why ppl are complaining so much about it.

Civ 4 has better graphics? Oh come on now, that's like saying Mario 3 (NES) has better graphics than Super Mario (SNES).

I have to respectfully disagree with you here. Zoom in on Civ V, gfx aren't good. I also just noticed that the little mines and buildings that were animated in Civ IV now just sit there.