What is your view of Civ3?

[Zelig]

Do you always open your mouth without knowing what you are talking about?

In terms of computer graphics, if you take a picture of some polygons, you don't have polygons anymore, you just have a picture.

 

[Kyriakos]

So? My point was that you cannot have the 3d models used in civ3 in civ4 since they are a thousant times more detailed

Here are two examples:

 

[Zelig]

3d models used in civ3

Civ3 doesn't use 3d models.

since they are a thousant times more detailed

What?

They're like 50x50 pixels in either case at a reasonable level of zoom. By any reasonable definition of "detail", both versions of Civ are more limited by their playable resolution than they are by any technical limitations; they're pretty much identical in perceived level of detail.

Here are some examples:

 

[Kyriakos]

They're like 50x50 pixels in either case at a reasonable level of zoom. By any reasonable definition of "detail", both versions of Civ are more limited by their playable resolution than they are by any technical limitations; they're pretty much identical in perceived level of detail.

Yes.

Not really 50x50, is it?

And why do you persist in saying civ3 doesnt use 3d models? I repeat that my point was that the models used in civ3 are vastly more detailed than those in civ4. It stands i hope as i have shown by now

 

[Zelig]

Yes.

Thanks for agreeing.

Not really 50x50, is it?

1. The big picture on the right looks terrible.
2. You would never see the big picture on the right ingame anyway.
3. The picture on the left is ~100x100, that's pretty much the same as 50x50 for these purposes.

And why do you persist in saying civ3 doesnt use 3d models?

Because it doesn't.

I repeat that my point was that the models used in civ3

Except civ3 doesn't use models.

are vastly more detailed than those in civ4. It stands i hope as i have shown by now

Check this out, this civ4 plane looks better than the civ3 plane (which isn't a model).

 

[Kyriakos]

Hm, now you will claim that civ3 units arent modelled either?
You know by your definition the only thing that has connections to 3d is something which can be zoomed in. But this is a very narrow definition.
Also i could just upload my 3d models in civ4, but they would crush the game since they have around 1000 times more polygons than the ones used in it.
Or will you now claim that Bryce6 does not create 3d models either?

 

[Zelig]

Hm, now you will claim that civ3 units arent modelled either?

Sure, they're modelled, that doesn't make them models.

You know by your definition the only thing that has connections to 3d is something which can be zoomed in.

No, you can zoom in on sprites.

Also i could just upload my 3d models in civ4

But you can't upload them at all to civ3.

they have around 1000 times more polygons than the ones used in it.

So your models have more polygons than there are pixels in the images you take of them.

Or will you now claim that Bryce6 does not create 3d models either?

Not relevant at all. You could make the exact same civ3 resources using paint, which definitely does not create 3d models.

 

[Kyriakos]

Anyway...

Here are some more civ3 units. As you can see they don't look horrible at all, infact they are very detailed and well-made:

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Civ I: Never played
Civ II: Great game
Alpha Centauri: Best in the series/genre.
Civ III: Better trading, resources, and far better UI outweigh the lack of wonder movies and the council of Civ II but still can't overcome SMAC.
Civ IV: Never played it because from what I heard about it, it didn't seem much of an upgrade over Civ III.
Civ V: I agree with the poster that said this will either rejuvenate the series or be crud.

 

[Zelig]

Here are some more civ3 units. As you can see they don't look horrible at all, infact they are very detailed and well-made:

Just like civ4 units!

 

[aelf]

So, anyone care to explain how CIII's gameplay mechanics are better than CIV's?

 

[Kyriakos]

So, anyone care to explain how CIII's gameplay mechanics are better than CIV's?

Can't help you there: it has been aeons since i played civ3, and only played civ4 a couple of times.

 

[Kyriakos]

And my favourite unit of all, the Shaggoth

 

[Smellincoffee]

So, anyone care to explain how CIII's gameplay mechanics are better than CIV's?

CIV's diplomacy model is more detailed and...more difficult, I think. In Civ3, the only way to have a real enemy was to kill so many units or take so many cities that they never forgave you. You could BUY UN elections in most cases. In Civ4, other civs remain annoyed at you for centuries for minor little things, and Sid help you if you interact with their "worst enemy".

I like CIV's detailed diplomacy model, I just wish it were more forgiving.

 

[aelf]

CIV's diplomacy model is more detailed and...more difficult, I think. In Civ3, the only way to have a real enemy was to kill so many units or take so many cities that they never forgave you. You could BUY UN elections in most cases. In Civ4, other civs remain annoyed at you for centuries for minor little things, and Sid help you if you interact with their "worst enemy".

I like CIV's detailed diplomacy model, I just wish it were more forgiving.

But surely more difficult doesn't mean it's worse?

Besides, I could say that it's merely a question of being familiar with the mechanics. In fact, I'm perplexed by the diplomacy in CIII, as compared to the much more transparent system in CIV. In CIII, a neighbour you've been buttering up all game can suddenly decide to attack you just because you share a long border. In CIV, you can avoid that because for the most part you know what the AI wants.

Sure, sometimes their demands can be unreasonable, but at least they make them instead of just attacking. And you are free to weigh your options. Not giving up a crucial tech often means a -1 to relationship, which isn't a big deal and sometimes gets forgotten after a while. Work on improving the relationship in other ways.

Diplomacy in CIV is much more strategic than in CIII. Incidentally, that's why I disliked events in BTS, because I didn't like how it can arbitrarily affect what I see as a strategic aspect of the game, especially for more peaceful play styles.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Civ3's declarations of war is kinda random and the implementation of Mutual Protection Pacts is strange. It often leads to triangles, where every AI is at war with other two.

 

[civver_764]

Civ IV: Never played it because from what I heard about it, it didn't seem much of an upgrade over Civ III.

Oh man, what a falsehood that was!

 

[classical_hero]

What I like about cIV is that we have Pitboss. That is the greatest thing about Civilisation is the ability to play others online without the need to send emails with the game, since this makes the game faster. If C3C had it. then it would be an awesome game. It was still a good game, but I have stopped playing it, since Iahve gotten cIV

 

[Kyriakos]

Another little gem:

 

[History_Buff]

See what I mean? I've heard only complaints about graphics (a matter of taste) and some unsubstantiated comments about gameplay mechanics (combat system stupid? Like how when you don't get as much? Lack of depth? How?) and not an objectively valid comment about how CIII is better than CIV.

Alright, my complaints about Civ 4's combat system. It's mostly about the way artillery type units are set up. The fact that the way to assault well defended positions was to churn out dozens of artillery units and just hurl them at the enemy. While Civ 3's artillery system was admittedly overpowered, Civ 4's was worse.

The lack of depth comment applies to the whole Civ franchise, and it's why I don't play it a lot anymore. Perhaps I've been spoiled by Paradox games, but Civ's general lack of an economic or demographic model is very upsetting. I want to see economies suffer due to war time demands; I want to see minority upset at their overlords, and rebellions when you really piss them off. Plus the fact that you don't need to supply your troops at all. It's just: build death stack, send death stack on murderous rampage.

And my complaint about Civ 4's graphics has a lot to do with them trying to make everything smaller. The maps were smaller, cities were very expensive, even if well sited, and even the most zoomed-out play mode covered precious little of the map.

The only area I feel Civ 4 really exceeded Civ 3 was in re-adding mod support, but I feel it fails in too many other areas to be truly enjoyable. But, I do have high hopes for Civ 5.