The graphics: summarized opinions

[Ralf]

A graphic score-list from 1 (really bad) to 5 (excellent). Add your own values:

- Advisor-screens: 5
- Units: 4+
- City on map: 4+
- City-view: 5
- Basic terrain-types: 3-
- Tile-improvements: 2

The fuzzy looking forrest-variant, unproportional mountains and yellow-green ocean/rivers drags it down. The other terrain-tiles looks "3" to me (OK, but could be better). The hills looks good though. Roads/rivers over those pointy mountains looks ridicules. I dont like the warm-yellow colour-tone. Bright colours yes, but a more neutral colour-tone, please. Irrigations look like marshes (grade 1-, sorry). If they where basic marshes I would give it a "4".

[TechWins]

- Advisor-screens: 4
- Units: 4-
- Basic terrain-types: 2+
- Tile-improvements: 2-
- City View: 4+

Overall, this is not an average, the graphics are about 3. A little bit above average. I don't really think they're going to revolutionize Civ's genre like Firaxis has stated. I do believe that will be considered fairly good for it's genre.

[Adagio]

- Advisor-screens: 5
- Units: 4
- City on map: 4 +
- Basic terrain-types: 3
- Tile-improvements: 3
- City View: 5
- Leaders: 4 +


Leaders: Abraham Lincoln, etc...

[Lord_Davinator]

- Advisor-screens: 5
- Units: 5
- City on map: 3
- Basic terrain-types: 2
- Tile-improvements: 1
- City View: 4
- Leaders: 5

[Ralf]

Land-terrain should raise above oceans somewhat. Important!
Contradiction made a nice attempt in his Check this one out thread.

[LaRusso]

- Advisor-screens: 5 (now, this is an easy part)
- Units: 2
- City on map: 3
- Basic terrain-types: 2
- Tile-improvements: 1

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Ralf
Land-terrain should raise above oceans somewhat. Important!
Contradiction made a nice attempt in his Check this one out thread.

I like that raise above oceans, but I think it would look great if both raised and non-raised is in the game, this makes a certain difference in the game. Like the thing about (for example) trees are not the same all over the world

[Solver]

I sometimes care more for good videos rather than unit, etc. pictures, because videos make the impression. When I'll start Civ 3 for the first time, the first thing I'll see will be the starting video, and if it is absolutely bad, than the first thoughts won't be good either.
Strategy games don't have the best graphics, at least they never did. Even though, Age of Mythology is now trying to be a strategy game with some excellent graphics (really looks like that).

[Swissy]

- Advisor-screens: 5
- Units: 4
- City on map: 2 *
- Basic terrain-types: 0 *
- Tile-improvements: 1*

*It seems that Firaxis thinks the game map graphics is one area they can go cheap on. The Advisor screens/leaders/Units looks very well done. The map looks cheap compared to the other graphics in the game. Not so much that it is bad, but not upto the standards of the other game graphics.

AS: 5
Units: 4
City on Map: 5
Terrain: 3
TI: 3

I'm quite positive by it, but this is looking at it from an artists point of view. There are things that artists know that would really surprise non-artists about how the brain see's.

But, the terrain has naturaly not pleased most of the people here, but the reason I have given it a 3, is because it does have its good sides, but the bad sides equal its good.

[Akron]

Sorry, the map graphics are horrible. Maybe 6 years ago they may have been ok, but compared to most games on the market today they look plain ugly. I don't understand why they are so dull and soggy. Looks like someone took a piss on them. I like civ 2's grapics better. Also, the forests should join together, not be separate tiles. If the graphics can even resemble ctp's, i'll be very happy.

I really hope that sid can finally put together a game with decent graphics and music. For newcomers especially, those are two things that must be there first. As it stands now, though, the game looks cheap.

Maybe I'm making too big a deal out of this. The pictures may look sorta dirty now because of the jpeg format. But it really annoys me when people say stuff like this is good.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Ralf
Contradiction made a nice attempt in his Check this one out thread.

Unfortunately no image appear on my browser (not with Explorer 5.5 nor with Netscape 6). Is it removed now?

ContradictioN, can you tell me another place where to find it?

Thank you in advance.

[Adm.Naismith]

- Advisor-screens: 5
- Units: 4
- City on map: 3
- Basic terrain-types: 1
- Tile-improvements: 1
- City View: 4
- Leaders: 4

Overall a 3

I still pray any greek and egyptian god that Map graphic is still under development, but my hopes are almost as thin as probablity that Mr.Bill Gates gift me a billion dollars...

[BigRich]

- Advisor-screens: 4
- Units: 4
- City on map: 3
- City-view: 5
- Basic terrain-types: 3
- Tile-improvements: 1

The overall map graphics aren't *too* bad, the detail is quite nice but the colour schemes are horrible. Unless these are industrial revolution type cities, which I would expect to be ugly (never liked the red brick Civ II cities either), a couple of dozen of those is going to be wearing on the eye. Maybe thats the Firaxis anti ICS strategy - make the cities so ugly that a checkerboard pattern of them would make most players cry
The tile improvements are hideous. Whoever said that the irrigation looks like swamps The roads are pretty bad as well.
Sure with a strategy game the graphics are going to take second place and I would far rather have a great game sans eye candy than great eye candy sans game. Even so....

Rich.

Sorry about that adm, its back up now

[Darkknight]

- Advisor-screens: 5
Great animation and 3D people. I'm including enemy leaders in this.

- Units: 3+
Good but from what I've seen and heard they could be better especially their animations.

- City on map: 3-
Too big It sprawls over surrounding tiles and can block tile improvements.

- City-view: 4
Good shows everything you need and is in the main screen view.

- Basic terrain-types: 2
Aargh! Awful look at the mountain the road which should be behind is on top of it. And why in gods name have the mountains so high?

- Tile-improvements: 3
They should look a lot more manmade but aren't too bad.

Overall I'd give it a 3+

[Inverse Icarus]

- Advisor-screens: 5+
- Units: 4
- City on map: 4
- Basic terrain-types: 2
- Tile-improvements: 2
- City View: 5+
- Leaders: 5+
- FRENCH BEING PINK: 100+

advisor screens are full of grat info and are pretty to boot.

i havent seen many units, but the few i have seena re great. i just hope its easy to distinguish between them.

city on map, i have no beef with the city images. i am confused about the "2 tile city image" thing we saw a while back.

terrain types and tile improvements are DECENT when taken seperately... both would get 3-4. COMBINED (rivers on mtns, roads on hills) they really make me cringe. but i trust firaxis will fix that.

city view is beautiful.

leaders look great, and i love the expression changed to different offers / events.

the fairy french being colored pink? awesome. it'd be even better if they were prone to losing after industrialization was discovered.

[To_Serve_Man]

Originally posted by UberKruX

- FRENCH BEING PINK: 100+

\




Aww man, my sides hurt after I stoped laughing at that.... it was so unexpected after all those other ones

Anyway... All I gotta say about the other graphics is..
They all look bad to me. I guess the Units and City view is ok. But everything else, ick. I'd give them all 1- and threes for units and city view

[Alex 14]

- Advisor-screens: 4
- Units: 5
- City on map: 4
- Basic terrain-types: 3
- Tile-improvements: 2
- City View: 5
- Leaders: 4

I have to give the city view option 5, because it looks so damn realistic, and as you progress through the ages, the buildings change how they look. Plus the graphics depend on what kind of terrain you build on. 5/5.