3-D, Will it Ruin Civ3?

June 11, 2000, 17:09

http://www.geocities.com/gameopolis/images/picciv3d.gif

What do you think of the Picture? Will 3-D land ruin Civ3? Don't worry i created the pic not offical!

------------------
GAMEOPOLIS

BeeBee · June 11, 2000, 18:49

be sure it would ruin if it looked like that

Par4 · June 11, 2000, 19:42

OMG Roller Coaster tycoon engine plus civ engine = crappola, that was great lets hope Civ3 doesnt lease the RCT engine and reuse Civ buildings

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
HappyLand

Joe Bourque · June 11, 2000, 20:37

My bet is that we will see some form of 3D terrain in Civ3, probably along the line of an enhanced version of what we saw in SMAC. Personally, I think this is neat, but it dosn't add too much to the game, instead it adds to the feeling that you are playing with miniture toys in a sandbox rather then the vast map of an entire world (mountain ranges resemble a single rolling hill etc.).

Probably the map will be something like SMAC, but you'll be able to rotate it 360 degrees, and possibly change the angle as well.

Personally, I'd enjoy a really attractivly drawn map along the lines of the very first Civilization. I like the overview, as though it's a real map you're looking at, better then the isometric POV. But I know Firaxis would be crazy to do that in the modern age of 3D hype. Still, I do like to entertain the fantasy that it will be included as an alternate view-mode.

Joe

Theben · June 11, 2000, 22:47

The 3-d of SMAC is an abomination. ONLY if they use a "battle map" should Firaxis even consider 3-d.

UltraSonix · June 12, 2000, 00:18

First - Gameopolis, if the "3-d" looks like that then the graphic artists should be sacked.

Second - I thought SMAC had very appropriate graphics. Civ3 should look like that, but obviously the terrain would be coloured a bit more like good old Earth.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

Steve Clark · June 12, 2000, 10:19

That really looks bad. The best idea for graphics, given the scale of Civ, is Railroad Tycoon II (as has been brought up before). http://www.poptop.com/RT2/Screenshot...taly_small.jpg
Others have mentioned some of the RTS graphics, but those all would be impossible because Civ is continental-scale as oppose to city or regional scale.

Theben · June 12, 2000, 10:32

Has anyone considered the fact that from the view of the player, the earth should appear flat? There isn't enough differentation in altitude to show elevation at this distance. Civ2's landscape is both more realistic and better for gameplay. If Firaxis uses the 3-d terrain for a main map I'll be VERY disappointed.

Quartz Dragon · June 12, 2000, 13:35

quote:

Originally posted by Theben on 06-11-2000 10:47 PM
The 3-d of SMAC is an abomination..

I agree, the SMAC map did not look realistic.

quote:

Originally posted by Theben on 06-11-2000 10:47 PM ONLY if they use a "battle map" should Firaxis even consider 3-d.

Is a battle map (similar to Master of Magic) being contiplated?

Theben · June 12, 2000, 22:30

"Is a battle map (similar to Master of Magic) being contiplated?"

Dunno...but it was suggested in the List (probably not).

Hasdrubal · June 12, 2000, 22:49

This is probably a dissenting opinion, but I think Gameopolis' map isn't all that bad! With a proper, professional make-over it could work. Civ with a SimCity look. A 3D map does allow for some great new features. Just look at those howitzers lined up on top of 'Mount Gameopolis'!!
If CivIII will be 'Civ3D', let's hope that they won't use that awful SMAC map. Railroad Tycoon II has a beautiful map engine, though SimCity has a clearer one.

------------------
Ceterum censeo Romanem esse delendam.

June 12, 2000, 23:51

TheBen, I respect most of your posts, but this one here, annoys me!

Can't some of you people comprehend 3D?

I have a really tough time explaining it to women, not one can grab the concept of it.

Is it true, that some people just don't 'get it'?

It's really starting to fustrate me. Me and my mates were all talking about it, about how so many people just don't 'see it'. It's almost like they only see whats right infront of them, they see no depth or other possibilities. Wait thats called something, isn't it??

rremus · June 13, 2000, 00:29

I was a big fan of PanzerGeneral II. But when they came out with that 3D stuff in version III, a hate story started between me and the game.
CIV is a strategy game, it's supposed to be played on a map. I would love the map to have a cool look, the mountain to display as mountains and so on, but I wanna play on a map. If I have to start rotating the map and changing the view angle to locate my cities behind mountain hill, I would not play it too long...
Additionally, the 3D will take more computing resurces. I rather see them consumed by better AI than 3D!
And if the 3D will look like the one in the link above, then probably I will continue playing CIVII for a while...

[This message has been edited by rremus (edited June 13, 2000).]

Tiberius · June 13, 2000, 01:22

I think it depends on the point of view of the player. From the normal (standard) view, the world should appear (almost) flat (Theben has right here). If you want to zoom closely enough, the world should appear 3D.
I agree that seeing an army of howitzers and tanks attacking some mech. infantries fortified in the mountains would be nice in 3D, but this is more like a battleview, not the classical Civ2 view.
The CityView and the BattleView(???) definitely MUST be 3D.

Par4 · June 13, 2000, 01:28

I would perfer just a good flat map with some nice semi 3d graphics. Great detail in mountains, trees and stuff maybe its hard to describe but I see the cities and stuff in my head. I don't want a sphere map, seems too much like Risk2s and that is ok but not real good. The map has to show changes in terrain like huge mines, pollution, deforestation, acid rain, suburbs. Terrain should change and areas should look alike and gradually change. Well that's my synopsis of my map back to the spanish books

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
HappyLand

UltraSonix · June 13, 2000, 03:01

Here we go again... How about this? I think the graphics should be good enough so that the terrain can be perceived to be three-dimentional. But otherwise the graphics should not be employing the Quake3 or Black and White engine or anything remotely like that. Those type of 3d just isn't civ.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...
[This message has been edited by UltraSonix (edited June 13, 2000).]

June 13, 2000, 03:40

Oh so you want Civ to stay the same? Good ****ing one. That's a brilliant move. Not.

June 13, 2000, 03:52

http://www.e3awards.com/win.html

Check for the FOUR awards for Black and White. Most notably the LAST award for Black and White. I dare you to post what the catagory was for it.

Open your freakin eyes people, it's no wonder a lot of you are so addicted and drool over Civ2.
If I step back, the civs, haven't been THAT good. They were great, but not as good as people make it out to be. There just hasn't been a game developer to make a really really great game yet. Once they start coming in (as they are now), then you'll start to see the real power behind computer games.

Tiberius · June 13, 2000, 06:26

Loki, I think you're missing something: we want a CIV game, not just a good strategy game. I'm sure Black and White is a great game, and probably Warkraft III will be great also, and many other strategy game will be great also.
BUT WE WANT CIV3.

Joe Bourque · June 13, 2000, 09:23

That's right Loki, no woman alive can possibly understand the deep complexities of three dimensions. ::raises an eyebrow::

As for a word for only seeing what's right in front of you, you might be thinking of myopic.

And I think most folks here actually can see a wide variety of view points. They simply aren't myopiclly and fanatically fixated on making Civ3's graphics just like Black & Whites.

Cool it, eh?

Everyone has their own opinion and folks aren't stupid or incapable of `getting it' if they think that the graphics used in games like Black & White aren't really appropriate for a turn based strategy game. Such a game would no doubt be quite entertaining, but it would not, by any stretch of the imagination, bear much resemblence to the mechanics and gameplay of the Civilization series; and if you give those up, you might as well be making an entirely different game, with no relation to Civ other then name.

Joe

Imran Siddiqui · June 13, 2000, 13:09

Uh.. Loki... Civ2 is the best game EVER made, no ifs ands or buts about it (according to most here.. including me). The only thing that can beat it... you guessed it, Civ3!

Now, to the question. I liked SMAC's graphics. I want Civ3 to have a 3d map like SMACs (with trees and real mountains, etc.). I think that would be really cool. I thought Civ2's graphics were good as well, and I can't see us going back to Civ1's crap graphics with a flat map.

June 13, 2000, 13:31

We don't want a new Civ game, I think that's the major opinion of Apolytoners. We just want a few expansions. 3-d terrain is great for city views, but when it comes to the actual map I think it's agreed that the flat map with better graphics for terrain is most desirbale for Civ 3. I think to much 3-d will definitely ruin it, or at least make it a new game and not Civ.

Loki - God loves you

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

Par4 · June 13, 2000, 18:18

Can the BW engine even handle something as grand as Civ?

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
HappyLand
There is no spoon,
But there is a knife

June 13, 2000, 18:23

WOW! 20 People posted some type of reply to this topic, its cool. I would like to Say that PUTDOWNS are very bad, when I was reading this I seen all Negative Comments the only POSITIVE Comment was by I think Hasdrubal as for everyone else I know the picture is UGLY Hasdrubal had the right ideas, fix it up. I think 3-D would make the game more interesting. Thanks for all your Construction Criticism

Just everyone try to understanding that PUTTING DOWN Someone makes the person feel sad, you probably gotten some negative comments, why carry the problem and pass it to someone else?

------------------
GAMEOPOLIS

June 13, 2000, 23:20

Man, I am so utterly tired of this

Why can't you dumbasses pick it out? Why can't you read between my freakin lines?

You actualy THINK that by giving Civ3 a 3D world will totaly make it NOT civilization?

I'm gonna say this one more freakin time.

**A 3D WORLD IS CLOSER TO A GAME OF CIVILIZATION THAN A LIFELESS 2D MAP!**

READ IT! And for crying out loud, UNDERSTAND IT! It's not hard!

If Civilization 3 doesn't have an enourmous amount of graphical work, then it's just a Civ 2.5. Simple as that.

Gawd, CTP was a new game, but all it really had was a few extra playthings, you were all still basicaly doing the same old things. It's pointless carrying on the same way, because simply, it does get boring after a while.

Chess is not Civilization, get that between your eyes. Look up Civilization in the dictionary, its much more interesting than Chess. Is there even a game yet where you are actualy playing a true game of Civilization, where its NOT looking like a chess game? No, so how can any of you judge what hasn't happened yet?

Go and download Ground Control. Maybe then you'll start to 'feel' its importance.

June 14, 2000, 00:23

Loki - I thought you might like some ideas...
http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum23/H...tml?date=00:05

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

Tiberius · June 14, 2000, 00:58

quote:

If Civilization 3 doesn't have an enourmous amount of graphical work, then it's just a Civ 2.5. Simple as that.

That's simply wrong. It was NOT the graphics that made CIV one of the best game ever.

However I'm not totally against a 3D CIV, just want to be sure that to much 3D won't ruin it. And there are many other more important things which should be done to have a CIV3 not a 2.5. Take a look to the EC3 list, and you will see that graphics is not THAT important for civers.

Urban Ranger · June 14, 2000, 01:42

Loki,

It seems that you are the one with the blinders.

Many people, such as Thubun

and myself, have pointed out the sheer scale of Civ makes it impossible to have a 3D map. The highest mountain range is the Himalayas, with Mt. Everest at ~8900m. That' not bad, but if each square is 20 km wide, you ain't going to have any satisfactory 3D effect whatsoever. Most of the earth will be flat.

So you want to double (at least) the size of the graphic engine to see flat land?

Par4 · June 14, 2000, 02:02

Loki,
There's nothing between the lines, I see nothing but white

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
HappyLand
There is no spoon,
But there is a knife

UltraSonix · June 14, 2000, 02:25

The highest mountain range is the Himalayas, with Mt. Everest at ~8900m. That' not bad, but if each square is 20 km wide, you ain't going to have any satisfactory 3D effect whatsoever.

Urban Ranger - you've said it all! 3d Civ3 doesn't work!

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...