Will 3D mean smaller world size

[brianshapiro]

I've always thought 3D was overrated and more often than not ruined games. First of all often the 3D doesnt even look aesthetic visually, really choppy with bad textures, it just has this cool factor or novelty factor that makes everyone think its amazing (When Diablo II was being made this was the reason they decided against 3D). But more importantly, in many games like RPGs 3D has made the world size smaller, plot smaller, less usable items. I'm afraid that in Civilization 4 this will also mean the world size will be dramatically smaller. Its one more reason I'm concerned the game will be ruined. Civilization can get boring by the time you finish expanding territory and this is especially true if theres only a small amount of territory. I'm also concerned about some of the other announcements like RPG elements, but the world size is important.

 

[Shaihulud]

I never really understand why ppl are so against 3D. Imho 3D looks much attractive and the main reason Diablo 2 was 2D was that the developers were not familiar with programming in 3D. There is no reason why the world scale of Civ4 will decrease due to the change to 3D.

 

[Chieftess]

If you look at a '3D' game like Warcraft III, think of it like those old pop-up books you read as a kid. That's how a 3D game can be made like a 2D game.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

I never really understand why ppl are so against 3D

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

 

[warpstorm]

I'm afraid that in Civilization 4 this will also mean the world size will be dramatically smaller.

Pirates is in 3D and its world is plenty big. If they loot and pillage from that engine, I think that this particular fear of going to 3D will be unfounded (the issues of bad textures etc. may still be there).

 

[horragoth]

I just do not understand why a turn based strategy game should be 3D unless it is situated in space (... and having experience with the Master of Orion III even in such a case I would be worried). What bothers me is, that AFAIK the cost of making good 3D graphics is much higher than in 2D and those monies are likely to be missing somevhere elese (AI for instance). IMO the 3D is too much effort for the civ-type game providing limited return. I am afraid that it was the reason why many good 2D games produced terrible 3D sequels.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I too don't really see what benefits 3D are supposed to bring, beyond possibly better gfx, which I don't care too much about (had I cared much about gfx, I'd never started playing Civ in the first place ...).

 

[Jon Shafer]

I just do not understand why a turn based strategy game should be 3D unless it is situated in space (... and having experience with the Master of Orion III even in such a case I would be worried). What bothers me is, that AFAIK the cost of making good 3D graphics is much higher than in 2D and those monies are likely to be missing somevhere elese (AI for instance). IMO the 3D is too much effort for the civ-type game providing limited return. I am afraid that it was the reason why many good 2D games produced terrible 3D sequels.

Actually, this is untrue.

3D is much easier to create these days if you're using people who have experience in the field (which certainly Firaxis is). A lot of the Civ 3 graphics were made in 3D and then had to be rendered down to 2D... so the same 3D elements are there, there's just an extra step to use them.

3D can actually cut load time, install size and all sorts of other things, because its easier to store graphics as math than it is to store them as raw data (think avi or mpeg movies or something). If you have an adequate 3D card, it should also run faster as well.

So from a development standpoint, they are quite a bit easier to work with.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

As much as I could live without 3D and multiplayer, I agree with Firaxis' assessment you cannot sell a game today outside a die-hard community without those features.
Or sound; never turned that on. Or take the Aerial view in C3C - how many ppl keep complaining about the missing wonders?
From a marketing POV, it would be suicidial to stick to 2D.

 

[mitsho]

And of course, 3D has to be thought as something alike Warcraft3. And you agree that this is just a 2D-Game with 3D Graphics. The view is still the same, it just looks better. Wouldn't it be cool to zoom into the civ game so that you don't see the army behind the mountain and watch your army walking around and slowly revealing parts of the enemy? Of course, this is unrealistic (civ is not played this way and it is turn-based), but still, wouldn't it be cool?

Therefore, no, world size would stay the same.

mfG mitsho

 

[Crimso]

Civ has to become 3D sooner or later.

 

[warpstorm]

If I were to hazard a predicition. The 3D in Civ4 will vagualy resemble that in Pirates. Take a look at it (especially the turn based land combat screens) to get a feel for what it'll most likely be like.

 

[Dida]

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.

 

[horragoth]

Actually, this is untrue.
3D is much easier to create these days if you're using people who have experience in the field (which certainly Firaxis is). A lot of the Civ 3 graphics were made in 3D and then had to be rendered down to 2D... so the same 3D elements are there, there's just an extra step to use them.

I know that 3D modelling took part in the 2D civ graphics creation process, but rendering them realtime is quite a different thing. All 3D graphics in strategy games I have ever seen is either too large preventing clear view of larger portion of the strategy map (e.g. Warcraft III) or too low-detailed and less easily perceptable (eg. Total War series).
If the Civ IV will become the first exception I will experience I will be very happy about it, but there were so many negative cases that prevent me from being positive until I see some preview.

 

[warpstorm]

horragoth, like I said a few items up, try the land based combat from the new Pirates. This has a very Civ feel to it.

 

[horragoth]

horragoth, like I said a few items up, try the land based combat from the new Pirates. This has a very Civ feel to it.

I did not bought Pirates, so my only info are screenshots. Actually they are one of the sources of my worries which made me to write the previous post.

 

[Spatula]

Civ is already 3D - up+down, side-to-side, and TIME

Joking aside, I would not want to see Civ go spacial 3D because of things like loading times. And anyway, we are playing on the surface of the world from an aerial viewpoint - 3D means nothing from such a persective. Sure, we know the world is 3D (otherwise we wouldn't be able have an aerial viewpoint), but that means nothing to us up here. If we are on a bombing mission we need two co-ordinates: latitude and longtitude (spelling?). Same in Civ. We want to move things around, not towards/away from the ground.

 

[warpstorm]

I think there is no point arguing about it. Firaxis made this decision many months ago. It is most likely too late to sway them on it.

 

[microbe]

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

I've also seen games really get a new life after going to 3D which made you never want to go back to the old version.

So let's just wait and see. I have some confidence in Sid Meier.

 

[MattII]

I'm neither for nor against 2D or 3D (I try to maintain a neutral viewpoint), but given the setup of the Civilisation series, I cannot see how Civ IV could be improved or even really changed with the Introduction of 3D, unless it has to do with the city view and throne room.