Will 3D mean smaller world size

[croxis]

a game played on 3D map will have much higher system demand than a game on 2D maps. This is not good, because the world size is already too big, and the game is already very demanding for most systems, if you play with more than the standard set of 8 AIs.
Going 3D will not help at all, as the in the case of Panzer General, I still play the first 2D simple PG that came out 10 years ago, and I played PG 3, in full 3D graphic for about 20 seconds.

First off gameplay and graphics arnt directly related. PG 3 was bad because of gameplay, not because of graphics (from my understanding anyways). Also 3d rendering is done by your graphics processor, NOT your main cpu. They will be independent of each other. Also the long time between turns is because of the number of units and cities the ai controls in later games. World sizes causes this. Now if the programers can get the Ais to preplan moves while the player conducts their turn then turns would go by much faster. Also the world is too big only if you play on that size. I play on smaller maps and I never suffer from long turns.

What will cause graphical slowdown is advanced effects and high polygons. Unlike total war ther wont be hundereds - thousands of units on screen, so more polygons can be afforded for more detailed sprites. Also some people are confusing real time 3d rendering with 3d movement. 3D rendering renders graphics in real time as opposed to pre-rendered 2d sprites that civ 1-3 uses.

Read trips post, he explains the 3d thing quite well.

 

[ggm]

personnally I would prefer to stick with a 2d system but have layers like call to power 1 space environment. thus you could create layers like low orbit high orbit underground and sea bed. units could then have modable flags for movement in each enironment. layers could be transluscent but still visible by a switch in the program. units could move between layers either by portals or by themselves if they had the right flags. as to eye candy and fancy interface scrolling I say screw it it adds nothing to gameplay.

 

[Gingerbread Man]

Actually, for games like Total War where there are lots of units onscreen, a noticeable speedup happened on many 3d-accelerated computers, because it better used the resources of the graphics card.

Now I hardly expect civIV to be a DirectX 9.1 power-hungry beast. Due to the lack of many complexities, I predict that if your computer can run The Sims comfortably, it should be able to run civIV.

The worry about the 3D engine is unfounded. The fact that the engine existed even before they started developing civIV, douses the claims that it will blow production time out, causing a skimp on gameplay. The time it takes for the computer to draw the screen will be quicker. A load will be taken off the CPU, making it run faster. The detail and resolution will be scaleable, unlike civ3. But, mostly of all, due to the turn-based nature of civIV, the 3D viewpoint will NOT get in the way of gameplay. In fact, the versatility of the camera viewpoint will enhance slow-paced games like civIV, unlike how it becomes a gameplay distraction, like in some RTS and RPG games.

 

[AA-battery]

I think 2D is fine. But the terrain and rivers and improvements could be a little more popped up I guess. Maybe when you zoom into a city it becomes 3D.

 

[croxis]

Again, you people are confusing 3d rendering with a 3d environment. There will be no upper levels, or lower levels, just that the units will be rendered in real time from a file full of mathmatics instead of a pre-rendered gfx file.

 

[blackheart]

What's so bad about 3D? Looking at the screenshots of what is Civ4 so far, the requirements shouldn't be that much more to have it 3D. If you aren't running a Commodore 64 your computer should be able to handle it.

While there is concern that the graphics will be choppy, that's not a 3D graphic problem itself, just a programmar/artist flaw. Plenty of games are beautifully rendered in 3D, and Civ4 should be no exception.

 

[Black_Hole]

3d will mean about the same world size, as long as they dont go aom 3d, it could even get slightly larger as moderate 3d loads faster than 2d on 3d graphics cards, since in 3d images get drawn very fast, while in 2d they are already made and have to be loaded

 

[Dida]

Moderate 3D looks ugly. I mean 3D graphics look a lot worse than 2D if you don't turn on high detail and high polygon.

 

[Spatula]

I'd say stick with 2D. It ain't broke, so.....

Besides the way the game is we already have 'pseudo-3D' graphics. Why bother to change, to satisfy those who won't get anything without all 3 dimensions?

 

[brianshapiro]

Moderate 3D looks ugly. I mean 3D graphics look a lot worse than 2D if you don't turn on high detail and high polygon.

even with a lot of high polygon game graphics, if people saw a screenshot and didnt know the graphics were in game 3D, but just something drawn, they would think they looked bad. as it is, its easier to make a game visually aesthetic in 2D with rendered graphics. in some games real 3D in game is good for the engine but i think people are wondering why its good for civilization other than as a gimmick

 

[warpstorm]

Why bother to change, to satisfy those who won't get anything without all 3 dimensions?

Well, when the someone is your publisher and their marketing department...

 

[Alexnm]

Pirates! land-based combat screenshot:

 

[Alexnm]

another one from Pirates!

 

[Louis XXIV]

It would be cool if the terrain in Civ4 looked like that (it looks awsome there).

 

[JG99_Korab]

anybody ever played empire earth. That has where you can change between 2d and 3d. different cameras of the game. That would be awsome in civ 4

 

[Spatula]

Well, when the someone is your publisher and their marketing department...

Oooh wow, must bow down to the great god of marketing, for it is all-wise.

Seriously though, is anyone here going to jump ship if the new graphics aren't 3D?

 

[Jon Shafer]

It's not for the people here that they turned to 3D for. That's the point.

 

[croxis]

the problem is 2D is somewhat broken. Its slow, difficult to work with, and for quality levels 2d gfx take up significantly more room than a 3d file.

 

[Licentia]

Easy. Because so many great 2D games were ruined when the 3D incarnation was done (Panzergeneral e.g.).

? Panzer General 3D? I found that to be way better. I made less mistakes moving my units and it felt more realistic. I bet Civ4 will be just fine 3D, and it will have even nicer looking units because of it, not that the units didn't look cool in Civ3.

 

[Spatula]

It's not for the people here that they turned to 3D for. That's the point.

To be frank, who wants to be associated with people who noly think of buying games if they are 3D? And if you're that way inclined, then I don't think you'll like Civ much anyway.