GRAPHICS (ver1.1): Hosted by evil conquerer

[evil conquerer]

Here is a list of all the different ideas mentioned, in no particular order:

<hr>

EnochF: The map should have different styles depending on the age it's in. For example, it could be a papyrus scroll during the rennaisance, a map with a compass arrow and fancy European script during the rennaisance, and a viewscreen in the future (JT).
Potential problems/caveats: May make map hard to read.

Ecce Homo: Animate the water tiles.
Problems: May make it hard to customise the map tiles
Suggested fix: Have an animated format for the default that is replacable with a common 2D (.pcx?) format for customization.

Many people: Bring back the throne room!. But make it customizable according to which civilization you have (for example, the Japanese have samurai armor hanging on the wall, the Europeans have knight armor, etc.) Some people also support the palace instead of the throne room, or something completely different.
Problems: May make it hard to customize civlizations.
Potential solutions: In the civlization's text file, have an option to say which kind of throne room is used.

JT: Show wonders in the map grid somewhere within the city's radius.
Problems: May make it hard to see what's in that square.
Solutions: Make the wonder show up under units and special resources(?), make wonder invisible with terrain viewing key (T in SMAC and Civ II).

Many people: Either make the units 2D (unacceptable in a modern game, IMNSHO) or have an alternative 2D format to customize the units with. In SMAC, for example, a historical MOD pack is impossible because there is no way to modify the unit pix ("those chariots look pretty silly with particle impactors" ).
Suggested fix: Provide an alternate 2D graphics file (.pcx?) to provide for the customization of units.

Many people: City architecture should be cilivization-specific.
Implementation: Provide a setting in the civilization's text file to determine the architecture style. This could be the same setting that determines the throne room and unit(?) styles.

Many people: The graphics should not slow down the game too much or require ultra-fast machines in order to run acceptably. For example, the animation for founding a new city in Civ's I and II (something unfortunately missing in SMAC) would just be a pain if there wasn't a way to skip it. The high-res graphics in SMAC ran unacceptably slow on my machine (PII-300 w/ 64 MB, in case you're wondering), but the low-res units looked just fine and ran much better.
Solution: Make the graphics as good as you can without slowing down the game.

evil conquerer: If the units are modular (as in SMAC), the different sections of the unit should be clearly visible. I didn't have this problem, but some people complained that the different weapons and special abilites were hard to tell apart.
Possible solution: Weapons and special abilities may have to be exaggerated slightly on the map screen.

EnochF: If terraforming can be done from inside the city, there should be an icon that indicates work in progress on that square.
Potential problem: Might obscure the resources in that square.

Debate: Should the units be 2D or 3D?
2D isometric: Would make the units easier to edit. Would also make the units move faster (exception: CTP ).
True 3D: Anything less would be unacceptable for a new game. The units would simply look better. An alternate 2D format for editing could be made available relatively easily.

Icedan: Check out <a href="http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Keep/3402/Civ.htm">http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Keep/3402/Civ.htm</a> for a quick sketch of what the 3D graphics could look like.
Potential problem: No sense of distance at all.
Solution: I dunno, maybe some kind of gridline system.

Trachmyr: A style of graphics similar to Lords of the Realm II.

Rusty Nail: Make fog of war an option and don't make it too hard to see the terrain through the fog of war. For units and terrain, clarity is very important.

evil conquerer: Bring back the city view! It gives the user a sense of satisfaction, even if it is completely useless.

Eggman: Change the monocolor shield to a flag with a symbol on it. For example, the British would have a union jack, etc.
Potential problem: Customization.
Solution: Leave a space in the faction file for a customizable flag.

Andy B: Make cities look different based on their position on the globe (ex. glacier cities have little igloos, etc.)
Potential problem: May conflict with the idea to have unique cities for different civilizations.
Solution: Pick one, Firaxis . If you can combine the two, that would be awesome.

Fugi the Great: If the graphics are unbearably slow (i.e. CTP) then have a key to speed up the animation of units when they're on a long GOTO, by skipping frames, substituting a 2D unit graphic, or by something else. Make sure you can still see where the unit is going, though.

<hr>

If I missed anybody's please tell me and I'll gladly put it in. If you disagree with any of the suggested fixes or anything on the list, please feel free to post here with your suggestion.

Credits:
JT
Ecce Homo
Pythagoras
Fugi the Great
meowser
Mo
evil conquerer
Shining1
Trachmyr
EnochF
Icedan
E
Atahualpa
longchamp
don Don
Andy B
Depp
Eggman
Darkstarr
LordStone1

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by evil conquerer (edited May 30, 1999).]</font>

[Fugi the Great]

The question I guess is, do we go with 3D units like in SMAC that weren't that annimated, or 2D like in CTP that "look" 3D but are animated. In the Patch for CTP, animations could be disabled, movement could be made faster. Can the same thing be done with the 3D of SMAC? I guess we'll find out in P4. It would be nice to be able to design your own units in the game as in SMAC, but if you can still do this in 2D CTP style, would that allow the Warwalker to actually Walk even with all the modification shown on it? Would the modifications be quickly painted on to the unit so they show up. Or do you design it in 3D, and then the computer quickly renders several different views of the unit so it can be animated as in CTP?

Fugi, the units created in CtP are 3D, made in SoftImage, which is a 3D program. I don't know if SMAC's units are 3D or not, they are very hard to see, so I find it hard to believe if they even are really 3D. They may have just been drawn freehand. Which probably explains the reason why its so rough looking. But I don't know..

I don't think its the animations that made the units slow in CtP, I think it was the detail of the units that made it slow. Age of Empires units run smooth on a P200, which I think is the average speed of many people's computers these days. And i'm sure they were made in a 3D program to get accuracy and good animation. But if you noticed, the colours and resolution used on each unit was quite low, thats what would have made it smooth. In CtP they are all highly detailed, and high resolutions, thus making it run slow and jerky.

Also its not that easy to just create something in 3D, I think Activision were way in over their heads, thinking they could release some sort of handy "little" program that quickly makes 3D units for CtP. I'm not saying its not impossible though. But I am saying its rediculous to even expect it to happen.

I agree, there is a lot of fun creating your own units for the game. I mean I created over a 100 for myself, about 10 different cities and redesigned all of the land to make it more realistic. But in the end, I always felt that when I played the game, it didnt grab the excitment of using the new upcoming unit which you created for the future. Cause I already knew what it was going to look like, and what it can do, and how to get it. It was always a let down for me.

I personally believe if we can create units as Age of Empires has done, not make them too big and too detailed (like CtP did) so that it doesnt slow the game down, but not too rough looking, like SMAC has done. And don't tell me CtP's units look better than AoE's units, because if you did, I'd SMAC you over the head!

Lastly..You can download the entire game Age of Empires for like 27 megs.
You can download the entire Call to Power for 117megs I think it is. Yet, I have a lot more fun with Age of Empires, all because the units look cool. The enviroment is great.

I am not obsessed with Age of Empires, I don't play the game, but I strongly believe Age of Empires is the way to go with Civ3.


<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by Icedan (edited May 31, 1999).]</font>

[Fugi the Great]

The reason I said SMAC had 3D was that you can watch a unit turn slowly around a corner and see airplanes hugging the terrain with its ups and down. The reason I said CTP was 2D was that the animations look like 2D images that keep switching in to simulate movement, and you only see the 8 directions its looking in, not the slow gradual turning of units as they turn the corner. CTP looks like it was done in a 3D modeler, then rendered to a 2D image, and it is those 2D images that we see, at least thats how it looks to me. I always thought that was the reason that SMAC was so slow, 3D units moving around other 3D units on a 3D planet.

[Doo1284]

I would like to see flat terrain like in CTP, but have the world be round in 3D like in populous 3. What I mean is every square wouldn't be any higher than another square, but it would be connected not flat but slightly bent so that the world was truly round.

Oh, I see what you mean Fugi...Sorry...I spose you are right.

Im actually starting to remind myself a lot of the other games that used a "3D Type" Enviroment.

I remember a game called Interceptor for the Amiga 500. It was set in San Francisco. And all you did was fly around the city. The graphics were fine! I could easily tell what was what. And this was on an AMIGA 500!! (It was only about a meg big)

Now, Obviously we can make improvements to this type of format of a "3D world".
By adding mountains; with snow, desert, bits of cactus, grand canyons, flowing rivers, tree's. Tree's with snow on it. etc.

Its not much at all! a 486 could run it easily!

Im just talking about a deeper world. Something where WE the players, cant take part in aswell.

Also, the quarrel between Realism or Fun, is BULLSHIT

If thats true, then why the hell are graphic artists trying to make graphics look more and more real?? Why are we trying to make the AI more and more realistic??
why are we trying to find games with precise accuracy on guns, and driving cars??

When it comes to CIVILIZATION! Realism is ESSENTIAL!

[Fugi the Great]

Doo1284 - Exactly, for the area of a planet that each square/hex represents, it doesn't really make sense to go 3D with it, but I also want a true sphere for the planet so you actually have poles on both sides, where nukes can go over the poles to attack the enemy if necessary.

Icedan - You had one of those too, cool. Ya it was great running a program on a true multitasking operating system and you could do it all in one meg of memory, which included the graphics memory. Its a shame Microsquish didn't learn how to program properly so you wouldn't need 32 megs just to run Win95, and 128 megs for Win2000.

128 for Windows 2000?

You better be kidding!

If thats true, who the hell does Microsoft think we are?? Millionaires??

If they carry on doing what they do, they won't last long! Just like the petrol stations!

It would be nice to have 128 meg of ram though..but I still want to get a 3D accelerator...And move into a flat...and.. .

[evil conquerer]

-==BUMP==-

I can't think of anything else to say, until I hear about what Firaxis are going to do...Hopefully soon hey guys?

[Kris Huysmans]

Please don't make it too complex !
When I hear you saying about cities that look different for every climat, units that look different for every civilization, animated graphics and units that must be built with a 3d editor then I think building a scenario with complete new graphics will take about 5 years !
Graphics are nice the first 6 hours you play.
But easy costum graphics and rules for your scenario make the game nice for the first 6 years !

[evil conquerer]

That's a completely valid point, Kris. That's why we're hoping that they make alternative 2D files in a common graphics format (.pcx, .gif, etc.) to replace the 3D units in Firaxis' proprietary format.

Here's how I think the different cities/units for different civilizations would work:

In the civilization's .txt file (Yes, Firaxis, there had better be one, and if you make it editable in the scenario editor it would be awesome), there is a spot to determine which style of country and unit graphics to use. These graphics are also editable in a common graphics format. There are plenty of city and unit styles already created by Firaxis, even some that aren't currently used in the game, so you don't have to completely redraw the units unless you have a really wierd mod.

[yin26]

-=*MOVING THREAD UP*=-

[Bubba]

1) I just want to second the comment made earlier about the graphics in AOE being better than CTP. The graphics in AOE look more realistic and clean than the cartoony graphics of CTP with their funny colours, weird sizes and steriod body shapes. I would much prefer the graphics of Civ III to be the clean smaller AOE type.

2) Another thing that I liked about AOE was that the units were different sizes, that human based weapons looked smaller than catapults and boats larger than them all. I hope that this gradiation of size could be copied. (Although I know that it will be limited by the size of the squaresm used).

3) Also, the way that the unit stats and affiliation (coloured uniforms) were done in AOE is much better than CTP. I like the fact that all the information is invisible until you click on the unit. Perhaps the larger ships could be flagged with a smaller version of the national flag used for cities to tell them apart (or with an equalivent like the white ensign, etc.). These flags could be in addition to colour hints as well.

4) As to problems with National city flags causing with customization I do not think that this would be true. Just look at the loads of Civ II scenarios that used and altered the flags. The process was and could be similarly easy. The only problem that I can see is if the flags are done with altogether as in CTP (which makes it rightly difficult to know if a city is empty without a gold backed look with a spy).

5) On the issue of every civ having distinctive units I agree that this might be too difficult and take up too much space and time for designers. But an idea would be to limit the units that each civ can build as in AOE and add one or two distinctive units for the early part of the game as well. Thus, only an oriental civ could build a samuri or ninja, a eastern civ an elephant, the English a long bowman, etc. Thus with the different colours, limitations on the types of units each side can build, and one or two distinctive units early on, one could give the illusion that each civ had its own units without the attendant problems of personalized units for each civ.

[Bubba]

Another idea would be to try and integrate the landscape of AOE into a Civ-type game so that there could be cliffs were people couldn't land or climb. Thus there could be real fortified positions (like Gibraltar) and an AOE style rule that people shooting from above have the chance of doing more damage than those shooting from below. Perhaps only units with a CTP ability to bombard could attack this cliff like positions.

2) Also, perhaps an allowance could be made for race in the graphics of the city screen so that your citizens are white, black, asian , multiculutral etc. depending upon your civilization's starting characteristics and the characteristics of conquered, traded or purchased cities.

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by Bubba (edited June 14, 1999).]</font>

[EnochF]

Whenever people start mentioning Age of Empires too much in this thread, I get nervous. I don't want Civ III to be like Age of Empires. I don't want a real-time game. I don't want the combat system to be so mired in the vagaries of ancient units that it can't truly grasp the abilities of a submarine, a nuclear missile or a spy plane. I don't want my caravans unable to navigate a maze of randomly-generated cliffs. I don't want to spend three-quarters of my time fighting wars against aimlessly aggressive enemies.

Fog of war, I could take or leave. On one hand, it makes sense. On the other hand, it made Call to Power annoying to play sometimes. (Why can't I see my road? Is there nobody walking on it in the space of five years?) Watch towers (called listening posts and radar posts in CtP) I could also take or leave. If there's going to be fog of war in Civ III, we'll have to include listening posts and the GlobeSat and all.

When it comes right down to it, there's only one thing about Age of Empires that might work in Civ III, and that's the animated units. I don't personally look forward to having animated units because it'll make graphic customization a real *****, but I do know this: AoE had well-animated units that looked realistic and didn't take up nine-tenths of your RAM in the process.

But that's all. I don't want priests that chant and convert the enemy, and I don't want "wood" and "stone" resources, and I don't want goofy cheat features, and I don't want "catchphrases" for all the military units, and I don't want fishing vessels. Bugger all that.

[Bubba]

Dear EnochF,

I just want to make sure that you didn't think I was advocating that Civ III should be just like AOE. I meant the graphics, unit representations and landscape not the RT, hunter/gather format, chanting priests that are geared to the classical world.

On the issue of the cliff and caravans, it wouldn't be a problem if a CTP trade system is implemented and would have the benefit of forcing enemies to land on beach type terrain.

[evil conquerer]

<h2>Final Summary</h2>
All posts after this one should go in the graphics v2.0 thread. This is the final summary before the first mailing of the list to BR.

These ideas are in no particular order.

<hr>

EnochF: The map should have different styles depending on the age it's in. For example, it could be a papyrus scroll during the rennaisance, a map with a compass arrow and fancy European script during the rennaisance, and a viewscreen in the future (JT).
Potential problems/caveats: May make map hard to read.

Ecce Homo: Animate the water tiles.
Problems: May make it hard to customise the map tiles
Suggested fix: Have an animated format for the default that is replacable with a common 2D (.pcx?) format for customization.

Many people: Bring back the throne room!. But make it customizable according to which civilization you have (for example, the Japanese have samurai armor hanging on the wall, the Europeans have knight armor, etc.) Some people also support the palace instead of the throne room, or something completely different.
Problems: May make it hard to customize civlizations.
Potential solutions: In the civlization's text file, have an option to say which kind of throne room is used.

JT: Show wonders in the map grid somewhere within the city's radius.
Problems: May make it hard to see what's in that square.
Solutions: Make the wonder show up under units and special resources(?), make wonder invisible with terrain viewing key (T in SMAC and Civ II).

Many people: Either make the units 2D (unacceptable in a modern game, IMNSHO) or have an alternative 2D format to customize the units with. In SMAC, for example, a historical MOD pack is impossible because there is no way to modify the unit pix ("those chariots look pretty silly with particle impactors" ).
Suggested fix: Provide an alternate 2D graphics file (.pcx?) to provide for the customization of units.

Many people: City architecture should be cilivization-specific.
Implementation: Provide a setting in the civilization's text file to determine the architecture style. This could be the same setting that determines the throne room and unit(?) styles.

Many people: The graphics should not slow down the game too much or require ultra-fast machines in order to run acceptably. For example, the animation for founding a new city in Civ's I and II (something unfortunately missing in SMAC) would just be a pain if there wasn't a way to skip it. The high-res graphics in SMAC ran unacceptably slow on my machine (PII-300 w/ 64 MB, in case you're wondering), but the low-res units looked just fine and ran much better.
Solution: Make the graphics as good as you can without slowing down the game.

evil conquerer: If the units are modular (as in SMAC), the different sections of the unit should be clearly visible. I didn't have this problem, but some people complained that the different weapons and special abilites were hard to tell apart.
Possible solution: Weapons and special abilities may have to be exaggerated slightly on the map screen.

EnochF: If terraforming can be done from inside the city, there should be an icon that indicates work in progress on that square.
Potential problem: Might obscure the resources in that square.

Debate: Should the units be 2D or 3D?
2D isometric: Would make the units easier to edit. Would also make the units move faster (exception: CTP ).
True 3D: Anything less would be unacceptable for a new game. The units would simply look better. An alternate 2D format for editing could be made available relatively easily.

Debate: Should the world be 3D too?
2D isometric map, flat terrain (a la Civ2): Would be easier to edit, would be faster to draw on the screen.
2D isometric map, 3D terrain with altitude (a la SMAC): Altitude is an important concept that the game must have. It looks cool, too.
Would be hard to edit, sometimes obscures units behind a mountain.
True 3D map: Two words. Awesome graphics.
May be hard to get a good sense of proportion or distance. May make terrain really hard to edit. Note: I don't mean a 3D spherical map (that's not my department). I'm just talking about how the map looks.

Icedan: Check out <a href="http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Keep/3402/Civ.htm">http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Keep/3402/Civ.htm</a> for a quick sketch of what the 3D graphics could look like.
Potential problem: No sense of distance at all.
Solution: I dunno, maybe some kind of gridline system.

Trachmyr: A style of graphics similar to Lords of the Realm II.

Rusty Nail: If fog of war is on, don't make it too hard to see the terrain through the fog of war. For units and terrain, clarity is very important.

evil conquerer: Bring back the city view! It gives the user a sense of satisfaction, even if it is completely useless.

Eggman: Change the monocolor shield to a flag with a symbol on it. For example, the British would have a union jack, etc.
Potential problem: Customization would be hard.
Solution: Leave a space in the faction file for a customizable flag.

Andy B: Make cities look different based on their position on the globe (ex. glacier cities have little igloos, etc.)
Potential problem: May conflict with the idea to have unique cities for different civilizations.
Solution: Pick one, Firaxis . If you can combine the two, that would be awesome.

Fugi the Great: If the graphics are unbearably slow (i.e. CTP) then have a key to speed up the animation of units when they're on a long GOTO, by skipping frames, substituting a 2D unit graphic, or by something else. Make sure you can still see where the unit is going, though.

Kris Huysmans: All these civilization-specific graphics will take forever to edit (custom flags, custom units, custom cities, etc.)
Solution (evil conquerer): The user can, in the civilization's .txt file, either specify which type of graphics to use (i.e. oriental, middle-eastern, european, etc.) or include a 2D graphics file in a common format (.pcx, .gif, etc.) that has all the custom graphics for that civ in it.

Bubba: Make the graphics like AoE.

<hr>

If I missed anybody's please tell me and I'll gladly put it in. If you disagree with any of the suggested fixes or anything on the list, please feel free to post here with your suggestion.

Credits:
JT
Ecce Homo
Pythagoras
Fugi the Great
meowser
Mo
evil conquerer
Shining1
Trachmyr
EnochF
Icedan
E
Atahualpa
longchamp
don Don
Andy B
Depp
Eggman
Darkstarr
LordStone1
Doo1284
Kris Huysmans
Bubba

[EnochF]

No problem, Bubba. Looks like all we disagree about is the landscape, then. (But the Radical Ideas thread is another story...)