Sid says: "Civ III delivers visual realism like never before."

[CapTVK]

Originally posted by CivPatriot

The roads do not bother me as much as some of the colours do. I can live with the roads. The two things that would really improve the graphics whould be to get rid of that pink colour and use flags for the civs instead of colouring part of the units the civ's oclour(that's what the screenshots appear to me to be doing). Those two would be a big help.

Glad I'm not the only one noticing it. That's the only part that gribes me. The rest will probably be fixed at the end (although i don't really like those mountains - MOD's do your work!). And remember that ALL civs have their OWN colour coding. Those units are really hard to discern because of the civ colour codes and the resolution employed. What's wrong the unit style employed in civ2? There you recognize the unit in an instant and the small shield at the top shows the owner.

This is true eyecandy. Nice and sweet at the outset but it will give you toothdecay tomorrow.

[Inverse Icarus]

i agree, i perfer gameplay over graphics anyday.

in Half-Life mods, i perfer to play FIREARMS over Day of Defeat.

Firearm's Graphics arent that good, infact te models are pretty doofy looking, especially compared to Day of Defeat's sleek, professionally crafted ones.

but its the GAME ITSELF that i like.

and from what i read im GOING to like Civ3, despite the graphics.

BUT COME ON MAN. A ROAD HOVERING OVER A FAWKING MOUNTAIN.

[yin26]

I bring this up again because "Sid" is expressly hyping the graphics at the best ever for TBS, which is just a plain lie. I don't care particularly that the roads are floating since I know that will be fixed. What I care about is the ENTIRE LOOK of the thing, which almost nothing but a total re-haul and -re-thinking at Firaxis will fix.

Now, we can all agree that gameplay is more important than graphics, and I've said that many times. However, when a game seems to go BACKWARDS in graphics and all the while the company acts as if it has discovered the freakin' wheel of the graphics world, then I think you can see why I get so irked.

If they ever told the truth, like: "We have spent so much time on gameplay that graphics, even though we hoped to make them the best ever, got put a bit on the back burner" -- then I'd post something actually quite positive. But, of course, they CAN'T post the truth like that...so in comes the most blatant PR garbage I've seen in a while.

So, How is This Thread Constructive? With this thread, I hoped to:

1. Once again make it clear just how far from "the best" graphics we are talking about here (even after fixing the roads and doing some tweaking).
2. Highlight that the fans are not idiots who are totally unaware of better-looking games (different genre? so what? at least the terrain could be used, etc., though it would require a different engine **hint**).
3. Provide us fans a clear means by which we can start to analyze the Firaxis PR effort, which, looking at what we've seen, is once again going to be one of the most amateur and rather insulting on the market.

Thus, in my dream at least, this might put even the slightest pressure on Firaxis to come to the following conclusions:

1. Wow. These really aren't all that great graphics. Hmmm.
2. And we'd better not act like it, either.
3. Because otherwise our PR effort will make us look silly. THUS:
4. We could really rework the graphics and mean what we say OR
5. We could back off the hype on this one and respect the gamer's intelligence by focussing on things that really ARE worthy of PR.

[Zanzin]

Hmm, the old gameplay vs. graphics argument again. My personal take on the issue is that gameplay is more important. BUT....graphics are still very important. And when a company comes up with the kind of piss poor graphics we're seeing at the moment, its disappointing, and will detract from gameplay.

As for people, like splangy, who claim these graphics we're seeing are old...how do you know that? Admitedly, we don't know they're not old, but we don't know they're not knew either.
Going on the way Firaxis has handled doing civ3 (I'm still very angry about the lack of real stacked combat), it wouldn't suprise me if they think these graphics are acceptable.

Th only good thing about them is the colour coded units. I know others don't like it, but I think it's a good thing - it gives your units a bit of uniqueism over ones from other civs. That the French are bright pink is fitting

I noticed the most detailed and beautiful art, animations and sound ever found in the genre bit in the interview. This is obviously Firaxis' way of covering themselves and saying its okay if they do crap graphics, because they'll still be better than what we've seen previously (although I think CTP1/2 still looked better than this).

The reason for all of this - everyone at Firaxis is obviously blind. There's no other logical explanation.

[To_Serve_Man]

Originally posted by yin26
I bring this up again because "Sid" is expressly hyping the graphics at the best ever for TBS, which is just a plain lie. I don't care particularly that the roads are floating since I know that will be fixed. What I care about is the ENTIRE LOOK of the thing, which almost nothing but a total re-haul and -re-thinking at Firaxis will fix.

Ok, I understand your reasoning for this now. But still, think of what CAN be done, compared to what we really want to be done. First off... I deny the fact that Civilization is a Turned Base Strategy. Its more of a, Turned Based Real Time Strategy . I'll explain. Turned based strategies have much more complexity, while being simple. Examples of this; Diplomacy, Risk, Stratego (i spell that right?). We all know and love these games. Simple, yet very deep. Civ3 isn't really like this. Civ is Age of Kings (or now, more appropriately Empire Earth) in turned base form... its simple and stays simple. 'Build your empire and win!' sort of deal. So what do we have to work with here. Since Civ3 really does not have a genre anymore (by my words) let me give my thoughts on why the graphics are acceptable and why. First, how can a 3 demensional game's graphics be applied to a 2 dimensional game? Its probably easy, and you could talk up and down my ear about how to do it. But do we want to?. My answer is no. Because 3d games today are all about reality. About making their games look so lush and real. Civ3 does not need this. What Civ3 needs are graphics, that make easy to play and understand. That means contrasting colors. We don't need 50 shades of grassland, or 186 forest types that change with the climate. What we CAN do, is have one, two, or three different forest types. This makes it simple and lets us understand what we see. Another thing 3d games sell on is how detailed everything is. Those details are nose rings on your units, shoe laces on their feet. We don't need this in Civ3. The detail we need is to create a simpler, quicker game, buildings show up on the city icons on the map. Units now have color bans so we don't need shields or flags.... Yin, how can the Entire Look be the best? The only way they can be the best is if they are better than the last versions. Both in function and ease of use. We cannot allow ourselves to compare oranges and apples. If all you want from the graphics is for them to be more appealing to your eye, then is that truly better?

Your third item on how this post is constructive still boggles me. I am still young, and have little to no experience with the corporate world. But what I see, your battle against a companies PR department is not going to do anything. Its a battle were only one army showed up on the field.

The second item I save for the last... can you truly prove that the fans are not idiots? Who was it that said 'The Masses are A**es'? I know that many of us don't want to believe it. I don't. But aren't we being a little ignorant to say that if Firaxis cannot give us the world in Civ3 plus more, than its worth the dirt on the floor? This is not a insult to all the posters here on Apolyton... i really mean it. Because the graphics don't need the next GeForce card. What makes a Corvet or BMW better than a Dodge LeBaron?. I don't think its the color. The difference in graphics from Civ2 to Civ3 may seem small, but here, less is in fact... more.

[Sabre2th]

Yin: We've already heard your complaints/warnings/whatever. There have been God knows how many arguments about this stuff. We know you're worried, but let up a little until we get some information.

[Miatezhnyi]

Originally posted by Warm Beer
Now I do not have that large of a gripe with the Civ3 graphics, as a whole (Oh yes, there is room for improvement...) But there was something in the interview that rubbed the wrong way:

"CVG: Is Civ III sufficiently different from previous incarnations to feel like a new game, even to veterans of the series?

Meier: Yes! With all of the new and updated systems we’ve put in Civ III (like the enhanced trade system, the new concept of culture, greatly expanded diplomacy, more powerful combat and the most detailed and beautiful art, animations and sound ever found in the genre"

I too found this to be the worrisome. I can live with the graphics as presented (though there is room for improvement, esp. the floating roads), but I don't want Civ3 to be a completely different game than Civ2, an improved game yes, but not a completely diffferent experience.

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by Miatezhnyi


I too found this to be the worrisome. I can live with the graphics as presented (though there is room for improvement, esp. the floating roads), but I don't want Civ3 to be a completely different game than Civ2, an improved game yes, but not a completely diffferent experience.

I would guess that it will play mostly the same way, but with a different feel (hopefully a better feel)

[Jeje2]

Well, Yin has very good points...

The graphics seen sofar just aren't good enough. (To_Serve_Man: Have you seen CTP2-graphics? It's a very similiar game and I currnetly would prefer them after just comparing screenshots.) Cann't say at this time which one I do want to be locking at for hours and hours during gameplay.

Like someone has said here, yes I do hope FIRAXIS has (or will make) better graphics somewere. But the ones we have seen are just lousy. (Road, rivers, citynames, etc.) FIRAXIS has spent some time in making the units move in 3d. Why couldn't they also fix the map to look a little more like 3d? What do I mean, well let's take an example road+forest. Now it looks just like a line above the forest. How should it be then? Well, why not make a hole in the forest for the road and make the hole a little vider than the road so we can see most of it. (If we cann't see the brown road all the time - does it kill?)


Now when SMAC was released we complained a lot about the darkness. Finally they did something to lighten things up. Let's hope we can by this thread affect before release this time...

Why do I belive that what we have seen could be final? Well, the other screens (diplomatic, city) look pretty good to me already. I don't think they need so much work anymore if any. I can live with them. But the mainmap screen needs work - and it needs it badly. (Com on, it's what we will be locking mostly at.)

Yin: Do you have complaints on the other screens? (diplomatic, city, etc.)


Back to Yin's message.
If FIRAXIS will stick to the graphics that we have seen sofar, they really shouldn't emphasize so much on the graphics-map. Civ3 has many better aspects to do real PR for.

[Sabre2th]

I think these are just old graphics/placeholders. I believe that they have done/are doing/will do some updating.

[Nemo]

"Civ III delivers visual realism like never before."

"...and the most detailed and beautiful art..."

Made me almost pee my pants I was laughing so hard when i read these statements. It was at this point I realized that either Sid is clueless about CivIII or that the interview was a fake

[yin26]

Your battle against a companies PR department is not going to do anything.

Obviously I disagree. A PR department (a good one anyway, so maybe you have a point regarding Firaxis) WILL guage how their 'carefully crafted words' are doing with the public. I want to make it damn clear to ANY Firaxis person comes in here that their PR is horrid and insulting.

So, they can keep up the same PR or change. Of course, to keep it going the same would be to so doing realizing more than a few fans can see right though the garbage.

Silence, however, WOULD help perpetuate this crap. This is why I particularly find funny the motto the "Realists" seem to like so much, which is basically: "IF we can't fix it, it ain't a problem." Well, feel free to bury your heads thinking you can't make a difference. You are obviously resigned to playing any slop thrown at you, and there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself, I suppose. Too bad you'll be helping drag down the rest of us who have much higher expectations.

[Grumbold]

Splangy, thanks for the blind optimism but every time they post a new interview referring to beautiful graphics and match it with those same screenshots, your arguement gets weaker. Every interview they crow about the same stuff. Every time they seem to conveniently forget that TBS games have evolved in the five years since Civ2. The only truly unique item that will first appear in Civ 3 is culture. Everything else has been tried out in different ways in SMAC, CtP, CoNW, Imperialism, HoMM etc yet they seem stubbornly insistent that these titles either never existed or were graphically inferior and introduced nothing of any worth.

I really really want civ3 to be the best strategy title ever. So far they are falling far short of proving it.

[splangy]

Originally posted by H Tower


if your so negative splangy, why don't you take your abusive posts elsewhere where no one else has to see them. yin never did anything to you. why don't you just ignore a thread if yin created it. we are constructive pessimists, not barbarians who attack others for having a different point of view!

im not negative, and yin didn't do anything to me. its what some people call "creative criticizm"

[splangy]

Originally posted by To_Serve_Man
I mean come on guys. I can understand being skeptic about stuff.... but now its like you guys are being lazy. Its a known fact that Destruction is easier than Construction... and all you guys can think of is how sucky the graphics look (which has already been brought up by Yin.. infact this is the second time Yin is complaining about graphics with a second post... your starting to repeat yourself!) anyway, try being constructive.... Look at this game, Steel Panthers. I played it, its was fun, graphics sux. I think Civ3's graphics are better than this... even with a defective road.

Aaah pooh, i dont know how to get images up.. and I gotta go to work, no time to fiqure it all out. Anyway to see those horrific screenshots, go to: http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/...98/sp3-02.html

I'm just doing the same thing Yin is..

listen to this man, he said what i said but quicker and with better punctuation

[splangy]

Originally posted by Grumbold
Splangy, thanks for the blind optimism but every time they post a new interview referring to beautiful graphics and match it with those same screenshots, your arguement gets weaker. Every interview they crow about the same stuff. Every time they seem to conveniently forget that TBS games have evolved in the five years since Civ2. The only truly unique item that will first appear in Civ 3 is culture. Everything else has been tried out in different ways in SMAC, CtP, CoNW, Imperialism, HoMM etc yet they seem stubbornly insistent that these titles either never existed or were graphically inferior and introduced nothing of any worth.

I really really want civ3 to be the best strategy title ever. So far they are falling far short of proving it.

we haven't got alot of screenshots latly besides that batch, dosent anyone see that They Are Old very old, infact some of the ones released BEFORE them look nicer. im not being a blind optimist, its just pessimism is getting out of hand and when yin complains about the same screenshot TWICE it proves my point.
and i have yet to hear a word from yin since he started this unbased, pessimistic post. besides, sid answerd like that without yin in mind . some people (like me!) DO like the screenshots, g'day gentlemen

[yin26]

Please see my other post in the "What's all the fuss" thread as to why I continue to make a big deal out of this.

Yin: Do you have complaints on the other screens? (diplomatic, city, etc.)

Yes. I think they look cluttered and totally unfinished as of yet. They also look amateurish still. However, I have confidence those were alpha builds, and I was the first person to shout: ALPHA GRAPHIC PLACEHOLDERS, as I'm sure you'll remember but most people forgot or never saw. Pay attention there, Splangy.

Again, my problem is: If this is ALL you release to the public and then you turn around and say "We have the best TBS graphics EVER!" well, then, you are just asking for trouble. Firaxis made its bed. They should sleep in it.

[MarkG]

guess what yin, all(and i mean ALL) the screens we have seen are from alpha builds....

[To_Serve_Man]

Originally posted by yin26


Obviously I disagree. A PR department (a good one anyway, so maybe you have a point regarding Firaxis) WILL guage how their 'carefully crafted words' are doing with the public. I want to make it damn clear to ANY Firaxis person comes in here that their PR is horrid and insulting.

Ok, again, i don't have much knowledge about this stuff. So i'm just going to leave it alone.

This is why I particularly find funny the motto the "Realists" seem to like so much

I'm not sure if this is directed at me. If it is, please do not label me. If you want to label yourself as a pessimist, then be my quest. But don't do it for me. I'm here, doing the same thing you are. Being skeptic about all of this. To tell the truth, I am... Uncomfortable with the graphics. They do show improvement though. I feel that the graphics improved over Civ2.I have been playing the Devils Advocate with you to further our analyzes of what you find important. I have never played CTP2 or SMAC. I cannot base my judgement on them. But my question to you Yin is, How can the graphics improve? How can something become the Best? Define what Best means to you.

[Nazgul]

Originally posted by MarkG
guess what yin, all(and i mean ALL) the screens we have seen are from alpha builds....

Thank you MarkG for that information,

If those screens are alpha build then all bets are off.

I guess we shall wait and see if they come up with better screen soon.

Nazgul

[yin26]

How can the graphics improve?

Are you saying you haven't looked around and seen better graphics? Even CtP2's look better to me.

How can something become the Best?

Ask Firaxis. They are making such claims.

Define what Best means to you.

I'd settle with something very simple, something I've argued for a long, long time: Just give me crisp, clear and colorful graphics that are at least ahead of the last title in the series and of that of your most recent competition. Would that make them the best? Who knows, but they'd be damn good enough for me.

As for labels, my comment about realists was no directed at you, per se. But the idea that our voices don't somehow count reminded of their defeatist attitude of 'If we can't fix it, it ain't broke.' If you don't have that attitude, then I wasn't grouping you with that statement.

[meriadoc]

I may never post in this thread again since I tend to think that the graphics that they have shown us so far are really pretty good. I also suspect that the graphics have improved since those screenshots were taken.

I do want to make a statement about realism and 3d/state-of-the-art versus playability. Yes, it would be nice if the roads were contoured to go behind the mountain and through the forests, not floating over top of both. It would look beautiful, but after about two hours it would get really annoying when I still find myself asking the question of "is there a road there?" It may look good graphically to have the road go through a hole in the forest, but if it makes me make stupid moves with my units because I can't see the road then I don't want the graphics to be that good.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by yin26
Silence, however, WOULD help perpetuate this crap. This is why I particularly find funny the motto the "Realists" seem to like so much, which is basically: "IF we can't fix it, it ain't a problem." Well, feel free to bury your heads thinking you can't make a difference. You are obviously resigned to playing any slop thrown at you, and there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself, I suppose. Too bad you'll be helping drag down the rest of us who have much higher expectations.

Yin,
Are you actually employed at Firaxis? I mean, don't you think it odd that they are trying to ruin the game despite your wise comments?

[tniem]

Originally posted by LaRusso
Yin,
Are you actually employed at Firaxis? I mean, don't you think it odd that they are trying to ruin the game despite your wise comments?

Come on. Do you honestly believe that Yin is working for Firaxis?

He was the leader of the list on ACS and was for a while the mod of this thread. He has since moved on. But of course still posts here.

[Sabre2th]

You guys obviously don't pay enough attention. Yin is actually SID.

Click Here

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by tniem


Come on. Do you honestly believe that Yin is working for Firaxis?

He was the leader of the list on ACS and was for a while the mod of this thread. He has since moved on. But of course still posts here.

tniem, you are right, he is not employed at firaxis, he is the one who EMPLOYS

[kolpo]

Apolyton: Are the graphics or are you still working on them? Some people are hoping for the second...
Jeff Morris: Graphic tasks right now are finishing the remaining overlay tiles (like poles and mines) and polishing screens.

This let me rather think that what we see is close to what will be shiped except some erros like flying roads but that isn't the real concern of most.

Am I the only one who thinks the irigation graphics looks like swamps or flooded land?

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by kolpo

Am I the only one who thinks the irigation graphics looks like swamps or flooded land?

nah, those are moskito farms

[Rhuarc]

Has anyone ever seen large irrigation areas from the air? I think they are trying to make them look like what it would from the air. I realize it doesn't look like irrigation in the US, but what about irrigation in china, like the rice fields. I could see how it would look similar to this from the air. But hey, I'm not about to get into a big argument over all this! I do however think that the screenshots are pretty good, and like Markos said they are alpha screens. Also, I really like the epic feel that the new style of graphics give the game. Instead of the sharp blaring graphics of CTP2 (which I also liked by the way!!) these graphics provide the needed information while still giving the feel of an epic story unfolding before you.

[SerapisIV]

Originally posted by Rhuarc
Has anyone ever seen large irrigation areas from the air? I think they are trying to make them look like what it would from the air. I realize it doesn't look like irrigation in the US, but what about irrigation in china, like the rice fields. I could see how it would look similar to this from the air.

The difference between the graphics is like between farmland and irrigation in Civ2. We're seeing irrigation in 1000BC in a lot of screenshots, well before farmland. I'm sure that the neat rows tat people are expecting (not you Rhuarc, just prior posts) is a later terrain advance that you have to discover.