Make No Mistake: Graphics Are Important!

[Jason Beaudoin]

After a debilitating 3 months “out of the loop”, I come back to the Civ III forum to find that there is still an ongoing dispute about the Civ III graphics.

First, allow me to give my two cents worth. I think the graphics aren’t that great either. I won’t go into detail about what I don’t like about them, but to sum it up neatly, it’s much of the same old thing. The units and the cities look so much like CIV II, I wonder whether I’ll be buying the same game.

But, the point of this post is to stress that: without a doubt, graphics and sound are crucial in any modern game, no matter what the genre. Any computer game producer that doesn’t appreciate the importance of aesthetic appeal in an entertainment industry needs to get another job. Fans of this game need to understand this one fundamental fact: computer gaming is an ENTERTAINMENT industry, and aesthetic appeal is vital to any entertainment industry.

To me, SMAC is a very easy target for criticism because, in terms of aesthetic appeal, I would call it nothing short of a complete failure. I mean, as soon as I realized that there was no distinguishable graphical difference from a battleship and a submarine, the mouse I was using on my PC literally fell out of my grip as my brain froze in a baffled disbelief that Firaxis could have released such a game. The problems with SMAC’s unit graphics only scratch the surface of a mountain of other graphical problems. If this game had been released by a new gaming company struggling to break into the computer gaming market, it would hardly have gotten a glance. The only reason that it was successful, in my opinion, is because of an experienced marketing team that was able to capitalize on an already well-established “Sid Meier” fan base. Sid fans everywhere ate that game, hook-line-and-sinker, including myself.

[yin26]

Sid fans everywhere ate that game, hook-line-and-sinker, including myself.

Though some of us made it clear that we were not particularly amused...

I've recently heard of a radical new entertainment medium that purports to transport its audience to foreign (even alien) settings, cause laughter, tears, and even increased pulse. Some beta testers have even reported spending night after sleepless night imbibing this enticing new offering. And yet, it contains no graphics whatsoever. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Ever hear of a book.

Oh wait, I forgot--it can't be considered part of the 'entertainment industry' unless it panders to the basest common societal denominator: the generation that, lacking any creativity of its own, sits idly and chants its life-mantra, "Entertain me. It is someone else's responsibility to entertain me."

[yin26]

I read lots of books. You make no sense. Try again.

[TCO]

unillustrated books can still be captivating. As an analogy games with no graphics might still be appealing...think of non-computer games like chess. Do you really care what kind of chess-set you use?

[yin26]

I rarely read illustrated books. I prefer looong history books about the Korean War. I don't care what the chess set looks like...2D standard set is perfect with NO frills. HOWEVER, I ALSO like good computer graphics for games that utilize them well. There is no conflict in any of that. Books and computer games ARE different forms of entertainment last time I knew.

As a final note, consider: "Entertain me. It is someone else's responsibility to entertain me."

Umm, by your own logic, YOU should be writing the books instead of sitting idly by and letting others do it for you? What? Do you lack the imagination? Are you lazy? No. You want to be entertained while relaxing. No different from a computer gamer. What you MEAN to say, I think, is that a gamer's brain is somehow doing less imagining the better the graphics become. That's just silly. If anything, amazing graphics can stir the imagination as much as or even more than books.

True, one's own imagination can often be far more impressive than anything put on a screen (movie OR computer), but in outstanding cases, the visual medium can leave impressions just as profound and entertaining.

As this regards Civ 3: I would suggest the graphics haters to send me their moves by e-mail ("I build a granary in Lincoln"). I will then enter any legal commands in an on-going game just for them and report back the current game status ("Your granary cost 15 gold and will be built in 12 turns"). On their side, they can simply imagine it all in their heads or arrange rocks in the garden for future reference to unit placement etc.

Yes, that would be a far more entertaining Civ 3 experience!

[LaRusso]

the last gamespot preview has one new screenshot and graphics on it look MUCH better. mountains and hills are really 'gently rolling'. there is no need to grumble about graphics anymore

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin
The units and the cities look so much like CIV II, I wonder whether I’ll be buying the same game.

I think both the units and the advisor-screens looks great.

The map-graphics could be better, though. Especially the terrain-improvement tiles needs improvement (the irrigations look like drenched marshes, and the grapics for mined hills are too big), but also some terrain-types. Finally some terrain-elevation from ocean to land would help a lot. I hope some merciful soul make a really god map-graphics mod-pack replacement not long after the release, unless Firaxis dont do something serious about it.

Unfortunately, I havent seen any such private initiatives to SMAC worth mentioning, despite the fact that very few actually liked the original dark-brown/marine-blue terrain-colors.

About the units - just out of curiosity:
How should units look like in a turnbased strategy-game like Civ-3, with a three-quarther viewpoint over the map, and considering the unit/map-scale? Any examples from other games? Any links to such screenshoots? Any concrete counter-suggestions?

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Ralf
Unfortunately, I havent seen any such private initiatives to SMAC worth mentioning, despite the fact that very few actually liked the original dark-brown/marine-blue terrain-colors.

AFAIK the SMAC terrain engine doesn't let common people (I mean people that can't access the source code) to make MOD, because of its 3D concept. May be I'm wrong...

About the units - just out of curiosity:
How should units look like in a turnbased strategy-game like Civ-3, with a three-quarther viewpoint over the map, and considering the unit/map-scale? Any examples from other games? Any links to such screenshoots? Any concrete counter-suggestions?

I'm a bit perplexed because Firaxis spent lot of effort realizing quite detailed animated units that you can really enjoy only on a very near zoom. In fact, the only time I saw the animation in all its beauty was overimposed on the Civ3 "trailer" movie.
BTW, I don't complain about units looking, just I'm not sure about the units coloured by owner Civ colour (pinky French et al).
The old Civ II "coloured shield" or, may be, a proper miniflag near the unit health bar, seem to me a better choice (but I reserve to judge this playing the demo, if any will be released).

[fittstim]

Well, I for one would much rather have a "new" Civ game with the same exact graphics and a much improved AI than the same old dumb AI and much better graphics.

Plus the my present computer doesn't fulfill the "minimum system requirements" for CivIII.

[shade]

I agree with that,graphics are important but i'd rather see a better AI then new 3D graphics.

Shade

[Jason Beaudoin]

I'd rather have a game with EXCELLENT graphics AND excellent AI. Why are we selling ourselves short by trading one for the other. We should be demanding both.

[Jason Beaudoin]

I would also like to make one further point:

It is my belief that the reason why Brian Reynolds left Firaxis was directly rooted in the limitations inherant in turn-based strategy games, and I belive that graphics make up a large portion of those limitations.

Game designers are artists, and when an artists relalizes that he has completely explored all of the possibilities of his medium, he can do nothing else than to try something new.

Ultimately, there was a split between those who wanted to continue in the turn-based genre, and those who wanted to real-time. That part is no real mystery.

There is absolutely no excuse for poor graphics in any game, so we should really stop trying to make excuses for them. It's an ideological choice on the part of Firaxis to invest in decent graphics or not.

[Colonel Kraken]

Amen, Jason!

Why do people keep on insisting in this day and age that you can't have BOTH good graphics AND and a good game? That is completely assinine.

As for those who have computers that don't meet the measely (for today's standards) minimum requirments, you are LONG over due for an upgrade! Me included!

Guess what, for a Christmas present for my wife and me, I'll be upgrading my motherboard and processor and buying Civ III (fingers crossed). You should too.

[Ming]

Yeah... for the masses, graphics are probably important...
But in most cases, the majority of people buying the game because of the graphics probably won't be playing the game for a very long time. The next new game will come out, and they will move on to it. So while it may be important for sales...

The reason why Civ has such a following is because of the game itself (it surely wasn't the graphics)... it can be modified, there are scenarios, and the whole basis of the game is just purely addicted. Those elements are far more important than how a tank will look.

So I repeat my comments from other threads.... I frankly don't care about the graphics... just give me a good, reasonably bug free game, and I will be thrilled beyond belief.

Keep on Civin'

[Jason Beaudoin]

...oh... and btw, comparying a computer game to a book is like comparing oranges to apples. It is rediculous to try and compare the two.

From what I know of books, they cannot provide sound or any video, so how can you compare the two? You should have tried television... but fortunately, television producers rarely screw up like game designers.

[Colonel Kraken]

Originally posted by yin26
As a final note, consider: "Entertain me. It is someone else's responsibility to entertain me."

Umm, by your own logic, YOU should be writing the books instead of sitting idly by and letting others do it for you? What? Do you lack the imagination? Are you lazy? No. You want to be entertained while relaxing . . . True, one's own imagination can often be far more impressive than anything put on a screen (movie OR computer), but in outstanding cases, the visual medium can leave impressions just as profound and entertaining.

Yin, you may be a pessimist, but you sure do have a sharp mind. If everyone on here would present logical, well thought out arguments on Apolyton like you do, this would be a MUCH better forum because of it.

As this regards Civ 3: I would suggest the graphics haters to send me their moves by e-mail ("I build a granary in Lincoln"). I will then enter any legal commands in an on-going game just for them and report back the current game status ("Your granary cost 15 gold and will be built in 12 turns"). On their side, they can simply imagine it all in their heads or arrange rocks in the garden for future reference to unit placement etc.

Yes, that would be a far more entertaining Civ 3 experience!

My sentiments exactly! All I can do is laugh!

[Urban Ranger]

On the contrary, anybody who thinks that a computer must have bleeding edge graphics has fallen prey to marketing hype.

The comparison to books, while not totally exact, still has a strong point: a person needs no sound or graphics to be captivated, or at least entertained.

Graphics is just a medium, a way to convey information. How odd it iis then that the medium is regarded more important than the info it conveys.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by yin26
As this regards Civ 3: I would suggest the graphics haters to send me their moves by e-mail ("I build a granary in Lincoln"). I will then enter any legal commands in an on-going game just for them and report back the current game status ("Your granary cost 15 gold and will be built in 12 turns"). On their side, they can simply imagine it all in their heads or arrange rocks in the garden for future reference to unit placement etc.

That doesn't work, not because of the lack of graphics, but because of the lack of immersion (into the game). IIRC you used to play Trade Wars 2002, no?

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The comparison to books, while not totally exact, still has a strong point: a person needs no sound or graphics to be captivated, or at least entertained.

Graphics is just a medium, a way to convey information. How odd it iis then that the medium is regarded more important than the info it conveys.

Well, if you let me pass a light heart comment, I love my wife for her sense of humor, tendress, lot of good points, still she's not a top-model from any, hmmm "graphic" point of view (surely enough replayability, after 9 years of wedding, once you understand her AI tactics ).

Anyone thinks that adding her a "graphically state of the art" top model "chassis" could give her any bad?

Well, OTHO probably she'd chose another husband, for sure, but luckily games can't chose customers, so that doesn't apply to Civ III debate

[Colonel Kraken]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
On the contrary, anybody who thinks that a computer must have bleeding edge graphics has fallen prey to marketing hype . . .

Graphics is just a medium, a way to convey information. How odd it iis then that the medium is regarded more important than the info it conveys.

Oh, Urban Ranger, you make the same tired old comments other people do: People who want a nice looking game want ONLY that and not good gameplay.

Do you really believe that?

Do you think we're asking for graphics akin to the latest RPG or first-person shooter? NO! But certainly I believe it is reasonable to expect well coordinated, colorful, elegant graphics like in AoE II: Age of Kings . . . or even AoE. Now that's what I call mixing good gameplay (shall we say the ruler by which all other RTS games are measured) with outstanding graphics. And this on a game made several YEARS ago.

Wake up. It's 2001 for crying out loud!

You and your cronies make me laugh.

[Colonel Kraken]

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith


Well, if you let me pass a light heart comment, I love my wife for her sense of humor, tendress, lot of good points, still she's not a top-model from any, hmmm "graphic" point of view (surely enough replayability, after 9 years of wedding, once you understand her AI tactics ).

Anyone thinks that adding her a "graphically state of the art" top model "chassis" could give her any bad?

Well, OTHO probably she'd chose another husband, for sure, but luckily games can't chose customers, so that doesn't apply to Civ III debate

Now, that's some funny stuff!

First, let me apologize if I have offended anyone in this forum. That was not my intent.

Jason made, what I felt, were some overreaching statements and I reacted with a core dump of sorts.

My comparison of books and computer games was based on Jason's definition of the entertainment industry and the crucial role that graphics and sound play in effecting aesthetic appeal. I chose the extreme example: books entertain, therefore they can be considered part of the entertainment industry, yet graphics and sound make no contribution whatsoever to their entertainment value. Therefore, graphics and sound are not required to affect entertainment.

Can they contribute? No question. I never meant to imply that they couldn't or shouldn't.

I do believe that the emphasis on cutting-edge graphics in computer games has led to a rash of development projects throughout the industry where the developers became so enamored with the technology that they forgot (or didn't know how) to make it fun!

And I do believe that the current generation is guilty of the attitude that life should be entertaining, and that anything that does not entertain is to be dismissed.

Yin, I was not advocating an "all-or-nothing" approach. Like you, I read a great many books and still enjoy sitting down to a graphically pleasing movie, computer game, or whatever. I don't dismiss the need or value for entertainment, as much as I am concerned about a seeming obsession with it--by some in our society, not all--as the core value of life. (And by the way Yin, I am a writer, though not of books.)

Bottom line: I feel that too much negative attention has been given to the graphics with too little information. Perhaps the screen shots are truly representative of the product that will ship (hopefully soon). And perhaps Firaxis has addressed some of these concerns and we just haven't seen their most recent works.

I can hardly wait to see for myself.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd rather have a game with EXCELLENT graphics AND excellent AI.

Civ3, to be released in 2006 .

The fact is that Firaxis DOESN'T have all the time in the world. They must release a game by (at the very latest) Spring 2002. If not, Infogrames would, undoubtably, be pissed. Firaxis doesn't have the luxury of publishing its own games, so there is a time schedule. You must make a decision...

And, for the record, I absolutely love the graphics (especially the animated units).

[shade]

And if one has a deadline:banned: updating graphics is a lot easier than updating an AI.

Shade

[yin26]

DATarbell: Sorry if I misread your tone. I appreciate your clarification as I thought you were going somewhere else. Yes, I agree completely that the number of eye-candy tech-intensive games has led to some awful gaming. Nicely said.

Colonel: You realize, of course, that saying such nice things to me could put you in the line of Apolyton fire. Thanks for risking it!

[Todd Hawks]

I would rather have the game in black and white color than with a bad AI.

Just my 2 cents.