Civ 3 graphics - what's the fuss about?

[Solver]

I think that people who are unhappy with Civ 3 graphics, especially Yin , are paying too much attention to it. What I want from the Civ 3 graphics are good videos, and in game at least the same level as CtP. For me, gameplay is the most important, and Civ 3 looks promising in that area. After all, the units are fully animated, what else much do you need? Graphics are what mainly consume resources, so if they don't make superb graphics, it guarantees that the system requirements will be lower. You will easily be able to play Civ 3 with 64 MB of RAM, while Age of Mythology, with its excellent graphics, requires at least 128. If you got 333Mhz and 64MB RAM, your Civ 3 experience will be good.
Also, the screenshots don't much show it. They don't show the animation and such, videos do it.
Remember, Civ I came out at the same time DOOM did. Civ had 2D graphics, with little rectanges with drawings for units. DOOM had 3D graphics, which looked pretty realistic for what could be achieved then. But, the Civ's gameplay made you forget about the terrible graphics.
IMO, the gameplay is what makes it. If civ had perfect graphics, but gameplay no better than other Civ games, I wouldn't hurry buying it. But, with what Civ 3 seems to be now, from what Firaxis have told us, I'll be getting a copy as soon as it ships here.

[Dauphin]

I can cope with "basic" graphics, but not with "ugly" graphics, or graphics that look stupid - like some of the road over mountain shots we have seen.

[yin26]

O.K. I've said this 1,000 times (sorry, Solver, if this your first time to hear it from me):

* Gameplay IS more important than graphics. Period.

...and in game at least the same level as CtP.

This, of course, is ONE of the problems. I think the graphics look WORSE. Even that I could get over, but when Firaxis looks at this and calls them "visual realism like never before," one has to look at that and say:

1. Firaxis is blind to just how mediocre these graphics really are (as happned with SMAC, remember?) OR
2. Firaxis takes us for a bunch of fools.

So let's make something clear, then. It's not necessarily the less-than impressive graphics that worry me but that Firaxis actually sees them as a source of pride, indeed 'genre busting.'

So what?

Well, if the leadership can see in these graphics 'visual realism like never before' when we all KNOW they are passable at best, then what are they saying to themselves about the AI, the culture features, trade, resources? And on and on.

Frankly, Firaxis has used these screenshots and said loudly to the world: "These are the best EVER in TBS!" If they can blow it on something so patently false (at least from what they've shown us), then I have every reason to be GRAVELY concerned about the other issues surrounding gameplay.

Finally, as for animations: They are useless eyecandy. Am I glad they'll be in the game? Sure, I guess. But what we see off the site will be shrunk down into a tiny cluster of pixels that represent only a fraction of what we've seen when isolated and zoomed.

So I see the way Firaxis is heralding these lack-luster graphics as a BENCHMARK for how they must be perceiving the larger project itself. And anybody who thinks I am simply whining about weak graphics ALONE simply hasn't been paying any attention.

[Jeje2]

Originally posted by Solver
What I want from the Civ 3 graphics are good videos, and in game at least the same level as CtP.

And you think the screenshots seen sofar have been this good?
Maybe the others, but IMHO the mainmap loks worse than in CTP.

And it's mainmap that you mostly need during a game of Civ3. So I do hope they will improve it before release.

[MarkG]

you dont get it Solver. Yin is out to change the way the corporate world is working. He wants to eliminate hype from the gaming industry....

[Footie Mad]

I dont know if im different from everybody else here, but mainly what I want from the graphics in games like civ is for them to be neat looking, I dont want great 3-D animations that swallows my system whole, if I wanted that I could buy any other game. Basically what I want is nice graphics that I feel comfortable with, and sure I can understand everybody complaining about the road tthing but I cant imagine that being the finished product, it looks worse than SMAC and I think its highly unlikely that Firaxis thinks
" Well for Civ 3 people will want roads hovering above the ground, not like in SMAC where they were affected by gravity", well I sure hope not

[yin26]

Markos: Not true. Hype is a VERY important part of the industry. But hype should at least have an ounce of brain to it. Why in the world would you hype the graphics as the best ever for TBS when you show roads hanging in the air, etc.? Hmmm?

Hype that makes your company look plain stupid, ignorant or arrogant (or all three) isn't very helpful hype, is it?

And I also agree we don't need anything but super-clean and simply pleasant on the eyes type of graphics. And, of course, something that does that a step above what we've seen from 5 year-old titles or recent competitors.

[Recurve]

That may be so MarkG, but the mainmap graphics we've seen so far can't be described as anything other than amateurish.

Which makes me wonder about the rest of the game.

[Recurve]

I'm with Yin.

[Solver]

Well, to heck with the maps! The Settler units no longer look like smiling faces, and horses aren't something strange and grey-colored. They still work on it, some things are yet to be done there. It's currently just a little bit worse than CtP. In Civ I, you could make roads in ocean, now that was silly. Here, with a look at the unit, I can recognize what it is.
Yin, you hold on! I'm going to interview you soon .

[Inverse Icarus]

i wouldn't call what firaxis is doing here "hype". it's more like,

probably thought by Dan M.

let's throw out 2 or 3 screenshots and very vague information and go on apolyton and watch the idiots argue about features we never plan to impliment! those Fawking morons have formed clubs now. oh lordy.

"hype" would involve some more intense trailers... not this crap we were fed. you know, a trailer that actually shows something.

and how come all this "hype" is set early-game? i never saw a video of someone playing with tanks and battleships.

is that part of the game even done?

or did firaxis find an algorithm to make 10% turn into 85%?

[Footie Mad]

Originally posted by UberKruX
.

and how come all this "hype" is set early-game? i never saw a video of someone playing with tanks and battleships.

Perhaps if they made an official Civ 3 trailer but what we have seen so far is " shaky cam" home made footage not meant to hype up the game for the public.

[Case]

As there's no (offical) release date out yet, I'd say that Firaxis are probably holding back their promo campaign untill they're sure they have a finished product.
Also, it would be embarrssing to have features in the promos that aren't in the game.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by MarkG
you dont get it Solver. Yin is out to change the way the corporate world is working. He wants to eliminate hype from the gaming industry....

Mark, forget about the last sentence. Yin wants to change the concept of a 'corporation'. No longer are its shareholders the ones to run it, it is a general public. Actually, he views Firaxis as a public utility. We pay taxes (USD 40 per game) so they should deliver a service.
Firaxis is no GM but let's say it's in entertainment industry so one can compare it to a band or a singer, whatever. Now, there are fan clubs around, even boyband fan clubs (argh). Still, fans do not cry blue murder BEFORE an album is out. They simply have the power to buy or buy not (as Yoda would say). Yin can mobilise 100 people here NOT to buy it but the real squeeze would be a poor game that sells less than expected and the ruined goodwill of the company. Now, WHY would Sid put his name on a below-par game? He never did such a thing....

[TechWins]

I do agree with some of Yin's points but not all. I wanted to say that.

These graphics are too sloppy looking, IMO. The roads look very messy, I'm not talking about the road going over the mountain either. They seem to clutter up the map too much. The whole map appears to be very unclear. If some order, structure, and clearity could be added to these grpahics the graphics would be very good. Until then the graphics are worse than Civ2's.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

To me CTP II map looks better. (If civIII does not improve) The colors are my problem. Green sea and river color. Ok it is not totally green more like green/blue. But I liked bl;ue color of Civ II and than scale it to show the deeper/shallower parts. To me that green color of the deap sea would suoit better to the shallow water and hace deap sea dark blue like in real life. (well that is only just me) but PINK FRENCH LOL!

That is the best joke . I hope civ colors can be adjusted, if this is default and than no other civ has similar color scheme to them. All of the other civs looked OK from what I could remember.

[Lee Johnson]

While we're at it, can we prevail upon the 3-D modelers to fix the leaders so they don't all have teeny-tiny eyeballs? The eyes in all of the screen shots look strange to me.

[One More Turn!]

Originally posted by UberKruX

and how come all this "hype" is set early-game? i never saw a video of someone playing with tanks and battleships.

Not mention railroads

[yin26]

Now, WHY would Sid put his name on a below-par game? He never did such a thing....

Research Covert Action and CPU Bach.

[Colonel Kraken]

Graphics are important in so much that they be crisp, clean, and concise allowing the user to easily distinguish between units, cities, terrain, and terrain features, et. al.

I don't see this from the screen shots. The desire to use realistic tones and such makes for a muddled view of everything at once. Sure, individual items by themselves look beautiful. Put them all together and you find yourself squinting in an attempt to make out exactly what you're looking at.

To me that's not an improvement, that's a problem. My wife still plays CtP2 (modified by me, of course ) and is still a pleasure to watch simply because most of the features are crisp, bright and easily distinguishable.

I hope viewing the screenshots is merely a muddled representation of what it actually looks like on a computer screen.

I'm sure it will be.

[Sabre2th]

I hope viewing the screenshots is merely a muddled representation of what it actually looks like on a computer screen.

I think there's a pretty good chance of this. Remember that the screenshots are compressed and are smaller than the screen would be.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This, of course, is ONE of the problems. I think the graphics look WORSE.

You got eyes?

You looking at JUST the screenshots, or did you also see the movie of Civ3 Gameplay? The graphics in that were utterly breathtaking..

[Inverse Icarus]

whatever.

the graphics arent that good.

but really i could care less.

if I can tell that a Knight is a Knight and not a Crusader at first Glance, then hell, i'm ok with them.

(ONLY 90 MORE POSTS TILL I GET AN ICON)

[Seeker]

C'mon guys I still have Civ I installed where the tank is maybe 30 pixels...

All I really want is Civ II but with everything the way it should've been when it was released, plus a few 'more ofs' and 'biggers'.

Graphics=Schmaphics

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by yin26
Research Covert Action and CPU Bach.

What 'bout them?