ANIMATIONS: Really a selling point?

yin26 · August 9, 2001, 22:36

While I haven't done this scientifically or anything, it would seem that this largely "anti-eye candy" forum somehow and for some reason sees leader/unit animations as, at least in one case, potentially "awe inspiring."

Just to clarify:

** While the animations we see in isolation and in large size look good, in-game unit animation will be much harder to see in any kind of detail. Also, those animations will likely be from only limited angles and in the most repetitive format.

** If you want really cool unit animations, play a great RTS game like Age of Kings. Which begs the question: Why do some of the hardcore TBSers among us get excited by stuff taken poorly from the RTS genre? Is Firaxis trying to creep an RTS Civ 4 into the pipeline? (Hmmm, I just remembered that the animations in Heroes of Might and Magic 4 look awfully damn good, but they are done there far more extensively than in Civ 3).

** Speaking of, if you are really all that hot about having units animated, hell, make Civ 4 an RTS game. Perhaps Brian Reynolds can advise?

For my money, the unit animations in Civ 3 will most likely be turned off in short order. They will be nothing compared to unit animations elsewhere I have already grown accostumed to; they will add little to gameplay and atmosphere; AND they likely will eat up some CPU resources in the process...though it looks like the sys specs are modest enough.

And as for the animated leaders: Same thing. I can't imagine how much work must have gone into that effort. If they wanted to stick with their "painting" approach, a really cool and super detailed framed painting of the leaders would have sufficed and maintained the theme of the game a bit more logically.

I don't want to be the wet blanket once again, but I just find some of this excitement about animations a bit odd.

Acemo · August 9, 2001, 22:48

I tend to agree with you as I'm sure most reasders of these forums would. But remember we are the "hard-core" civers. I think Firaxis is trying to broaden the appeal of Civ3 to appeal to the more casual gamer.
All well and good, as long as gameplay has not been sacrificied for mere eye-candy.

I myself am optimistic at this point.

yin26 · August 9, 2001, 22:54

Yes. I can see the casual gamer eating that stuff up. In the long-run, as you noted, I hope those unit animations don't come at the price of losing unit DETAIL.

If we can still look at the units and know immediately what upgrades they have, etc., and be able to tell all the various things apart at a glance, it won't matter to me if they are bobbing their weapons up and down a million times over the course of the game...but to add more visual detail AND have animations seems to have upped the work involved geometrically...

Wiglaf · August 9, 2001, 23:00

Civ2 was a great game, but even the most gameplay oriented people like a little visual flare every now and then. That's part of the reason civ became rusty: the sight of newer, cooler looking things made you question why you were even still interested in the game anymore.

I'm sure the animations will "click" after awhile. Still, if they slow down the game (alpha centauri's mild unit movements caused a holdup) or if they get repetitive, I'm sure Firaxis would evaluate the whole thing a bit more. I doubt such an obvious annoyance would make it far in the development.

ixnay · August 9, 2001, 23:03

Well, if the screensaver is any indication of how the animations will look in the game, I'll be glad to have them in. Sure, they may be annoying after a time, but as long as there is an option to disable them, I think I will enjoy this game a lot.

tniem · August 10, 2001, 02:20

CtP had unit animations, so they need to keep up with what other TBS games are doing. Turn them off if you don't like them, I probably won't care all that much.

Buck Birdseed · August 10, 2001, 03:44

Just look at the screen saver, yin. Are you telling me they're not gorgeous?

yin26 · August 10, 2001, 03:46

I'll check it out and get back to you...

MarkG · August 10, 2001, 03:49

results from the ctp section

What Unit Animations do you use/want?
None 113 / 13%
Movement Only 117 / 13%
Full 600 / 69%
Don't care/No opinion 30 / 3%
http://apolyton.net/cgi-bin/poll/ctp15/results.pl

What types of animations do you use/want?
None 197 / 13%
Unit Only 324 / 22%
Goody Only 13 / 0%
Trade Only 35 / 2%
Combination of Three 191 / 13%
All 619 / 42%
Don't care/No opinion 69 / 4%
http://apolyton.net/cgi-bin/poll/ctp14/results.pl

Urban Ranger · August 10, 2001, 03:56

I'm for it if it doesn't hurt anything else, and there's a option to turn it off.

TechWins · August 10, 2001, 04:01

I think having animations will add a nice little touch to the game. What's wrong with having a little flare? So what if the animations get repetitive, everything will be repetitive after awhile but it will still be fun. Yin I don't understand why you are so down on the animations. I agree if the animations make the units unclear then get rid of them but I doubt they do. Plus where did everybody else rave about the animations?

yin26 · August 10, 2001, 04:03

O.K. I've checked it out and will give my impressions, but first as to what Markos posted: What that really tells me is that even TBSers put a premium on eye-candy, which is something I've known for a long time and never had a problem with. So you've helped answer the question: YES, animations are a selling point to a majority of TBSers here.

The larger issue, and one that is reconfirmed looking at the screensaver, is this: O.K. Great. Now we have nicely done animations (and they ARE nicely done, I can see) but the landscape itself is dead. Looking at what they have there, there is a major disjointed feeling as those lively units walk across the land.

Mountains are hovered over, along with trees and rivers and cities... In other words, any feeling of terrain depth or altitude is simply wrecked as these fluid animations glide around with a shadow beneath them.

Is this an improvement? Well, once you get over the disjointed feeling, I think it DOES add something, but it's only half the picture. Perhaps it will be with Civ 4 when these moving units are properly placed and interact with the terrain. For now, I'll do my best to suspend my disbelief.

yin26 · August 10, 2001, 04:18

Quote:

TechWins: You weren't kidding when you said "The most detailed and beautiful art, animations and sound ever found in the genre."! Awesome!

There are others floating around here talking about "awe-inspiring" and so forth. Listen, I'm not against the eye-candy. I like the eye-candy, but it seems a bit disjointed is all. It would have been great to make the units and the terrain much more "aware" of each other, is all. Perhaps for Civ4? ...as we creep slowly but surely toward an RTS Civ.

yin26 · August 10, 2001, 04:25

Couple more examples...

Quote:

MarkG: The civ2 movies were simply great, but it's not something to base your decision to buy or not buy. Wait to see these "animations" first....

Quote:

Warm Beer: I have a feeling (this may be the Fan-Boy in me talking, for I have no proof) that the animations will be awe inspiring.

MarkG · August 10, 2001, 04:30

i'm not sure for what kind of example you are quoting me yin, but after seeing the screensaver just now, i have very little issues with the graphics. in the final thing, at 1024x768 i think they will be just fine.....

TechWins · August 10, 2001, 05:05

I think the graphics now look very good. They may not be the greatestout of all games but I believe they are the best graphics in this genre. The screenshots we saw before looked terrible, wich I still do believe. It's just that now the new screenshots look very good. Maybe I'm just used to the boring Civ2 graphics, though.

I'm still not sure what your point is in this thread. It seems to me like you're not trying to figure out if animations actually do sell a game, you're trying to bad mouth the graphics and animations. What could you possibly have against the graphics now that you know won't be polished and tweaked? If they fixed the graphics once why would they stop here?

Buck Birdseed · August 10, 2001, 05:08

Yin - it's a screensaver, done in flash, with little animate gif files floating about on top of a .jpg picture. It's not like it's in-game footage or anything...

You have a bad habit on passing judgement on things you have not seen.

Grim Legacy · August 10, 2001, 05:17

While I'm in favor of visual glory, I don't think the animations do justice to the nature of Civ.

The thing is -Civ is an abstract game. It's not a single soldier with a spear walking about in some fields, it's a band of warriors roaming the vast plains.

The emphasis on that single guy swinging his axe misses this point, and, indeed, reminds me of RTS-esque games.

There is an additional problem -what about custom units? Is it still feasible to make your own units, now that they are made out of pre-rendered, animated graphics?

On a more personal note, I also think the 'look' of the animated units and also leaders and advisors is childish...somewhat candy-coated. Of course...this is done exactly to appeal to children, so that more copies are sold...but still...

yin26 · August 10, 2001, 09:14

Quote:

Yin - it's a screensaver, done in flash, with little animate gif files floating about on top of a .jpg picture. It's not like it's in-game footage or anything...

Let me ask you: Have YOU seen the game? Assuming that the game looks EXACTLY the way we seen the screensaver--will you have any problems with it? Clearly you are speaking of it as if it is somehow dummied down with flash, yet that may well be PRECISELY what units look like moving over the terrain.

Tech: Do you see my point? It honestly seems to me we'll have fluid animated units floating over the landscape. No big deal, mind you, but if you re-read my point, I think you'll understand.

However, if it's just flash making it look this way, I'd be happy to see the "real deal" somewhere.

yin26 · August 10, 2001, 10:32

Another reason I think this is what we'll be basically seeing is: Scale. The units are HUGE compared to the landscape. This is by design of course. But scale must be the deciding factor in making these units simply glide across the map.

So, my "bad habit" is often backed up with a whole lot of common sense.

Steve Clark · August 10, 2001, 10:56

yin, good topic (for once

). You are right, flashy graphics are for the casual games and for the younger crowd but as concluded last year when it was first brought up, most of us will be turning them off right away. As far as they being huge, they have to be, that is the trademark of ALL of Sid's games. The unit is the focus of the user's control and therefore, must stand out in order to view, select and move.

loinburger · August 10, 2001, 12:19

I've got no problem with a little eye candy. I doubt that the animations will be a selling point for any single gamer ("Oooh, the unit movements are animated! Move aside Quake IV, hello Civ III!"), even a "casual gamer", but hey, they probably won't hurt anything and Wutang, a little bit of something extra can help make tedious parts of a Civ game much less tedious.

For example, Lords of the Realm II offered major improvements in unit animation and graphical richness over Lords of the Realm. Both games are a bit tedious at times (IMO this is unavoidable in an economic simulator), but the tedium in LOTR II is much easier to stomach thanks to the eye candy.

SITS · August 10, 2001, 12:40

For me the questions I ask about CIV3 graphics are:-

1) When I look at it do I know what it is?
2) Does it make sense in the world it is in?
3) Are they consistent with a theme that runs all the way through it?
4) Are they pretty?
5) Does the prettiness get in the way of playing the game? (I.E. uses too many resources, is distracting, slow...)

From what I have seen I can answer yes to the first four and no to the second. Which is more than good enough for me.