Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by charon2112, Sep 21, 2010.
I noticed this too. But just left click and drag with your mouse to move the city wherever you want.
or you can go into config.ini and change it from 11.00000 to this:
Minimum Zoom Level = 4.000000
Hey guys, how can you complain at all?!?!?!?! The gfix are so.........ORGANIC!!!
I was surprised at how underwhelming the graphics were. I don't play for the graphics, but it certainly isn't a pretty game. I agree that Colonization probably looks better in most ways. I don't know how they made it look so poor considering the requirements.
The graphics are crisp and clean. I like it. I hated colonization graphics due to my slight color blindness it was just a mess.
These complaints are idiculous, the game looks far better than Civ IV does to me.
And while playing, the rivers are not as noticeably bad as they appear to be in screenshots.
So far with the demo I have enjoyed the graphics for the most part.
The terrain looks very nice. Mountains and desert dunes are my favorite.
I do have to say the rivers don't look that stellar at all.
Compared to Civ IV, I prefer these graphics. Sure you can't zoom all the way into your units and look at minute details. But when I was zoomed in that far when playing Civ IV, I felt that I was looking at a Warcraft III map.
I do think that it is a bit of a bummer that you can't see some of your city improvements, but in large cities, the improvements just started to clutter the city. I am not too disappointed with the absence, but maybe the top 3~5 city improvements could been seen in the world map view.
I did like how you can see when someone is constructing a World Wonder. Elizabeth was trying to build the Pyramids? I will wait a few turns before I go and capture her city.
The demo hasn't crashed on me once. I do not consider myself lucky, but instead I know that it's because my pc is able to handle the demo.
Imho, Civ V graphics are better than Civ IV. Trees being able to move does not mean they look good. In fact they looked a bit pixellated in IV.
What's really fascinating is that graphics aren't really better than in Civ:Col and the game itself has less features and units than Civ 4... But still it's rather resource demanding.
Unlike Civ IV the rivers don't move at all, so how can they look better while you're playing. Nothing moves at all in fact, just the animals in resource tiles. Rivers don't flow, trees don't sway, no smoke in farm chimneys, no little moving carts on mines...none of the terrain features are even 3d, they're just painted on the tiles. Not to mention the muddy colors. This is a step backwards from Civ IV. And that game is five years old!
Can I have your stuff?
Really, you think the graphics are worse? I find them beautiful and clean. I don't need the carts moving around and the trees swaying. The "recommended" "high-end" specs are a lie. I'm playing on a 3-year-old laptop with an onboard video card and 2GB RAM.
Because the graphics are tight and smooth.
Because I've simply not noticed a single bad looking river while playing the game except for when someone takes a screenshot and says 'OMG look at how crap this river looks'.
R U kidding....clean and smooth? The river delta is a joke compared to civ 4 and the Pyramid in the sea is unforgivable...You have to look at that for 30 hours of game play. I understand what look they are trying to achieve, and I commend them. Granted the roads, ocean and dunes look better, and I like the hex much better, but some elements just don't fit, hard to distinguish resources, poor city detail, and that brings the whole look and feel down a few pegs. And whats up with all the left side menu items? Any decent web designer will tell you to put the close on top right X, not all the way over on the left side.
Unfortunately, the biggest draw for me, a more realistic combat model, similar to PG2 is not attainable in the demo because of the 100 turn limit
One of the drawbacks to preordering, you get the game last! 200 turns for the demo would be better
.gives a good amount of time to get into a Real war.
That said, if the combat model is what I hope for, Ill overlook the flaws
.well, except for the Pyramid
put it on dry land!
The graphics aren't amazing, but I don't really mind. What I do mind are the system requirements in relation to what we're getting out of them.
I hear you, would be nice to run the game on my older laptop. I haven't seen anything resource intensive, or at least anything civ 5 does better or more of, as opposed to civ 4. In fact, at least with the demo there is less options to do and click on.
And…what happens when you run out of space to put units…or maneuver? Anybody hit this point yet?
these little thing really made me happy. I remember civ had waves and water flow in its rivers, civ 2 and 3 did not, but then civ IV brought it back. I loved to see the trees sway in the wind. I don't know why they would take out that detail.
To everyone who is saying this isn't Crysis, no one expects Crysis, but graphics should not be completely blown away by Colonization, a much older game based on an even older engine. Civ 4 also has graphics that are in many ways suprious. I am not expecting ultra realism here, but come on, some weirdo-colored strip of blue for the river that looks dead and sticks out into the ocean like something on a bad oil painting is just sad.
And in general the whole thing looks lifeless. Trees swayed in Civ 4, and in Civ 5 they just painted-on blobs. Pretty ridiculous if you ask me. And it all still would be ok if rivers weren't so damn hideous.
I'm done with the graphics as I play on the strategical screen now. the game is much faster and prettier that way ...
Have to differ with you there mate, Rivers are really really bad up against C4. I own the game and the screen shots look right to me.
Having said that the rest of the graphics look good to me, more realistic, like looking down on an actual land scape from miles up. The zoom could be better though; I expected alot more after how well it was done in C4.
The graphics actually remind me of Panzer General 2 (someone mentioned People general as well). Theyre better of course but remind me just the same.
Separate names with a comma.