So where are these Screenshots, Informer?

[Rommel2D]

How could the graphics present that big of a hardware requirement problem? If someone doesn't have able hardware, they can use lower resolution and/or simple viewing angles without affecting gameplay, right? Sort of like in civ2, you could play without animated emissaries.

The big things I worry about are: no major bugs/good internal game consistency (check: rewriting engine from scratch); New key elements in gameplay (check: religion/civics sounds like it will be as big as culture is); better multiplayer (check: article mentions a dedicated server as an option for PBEM ); get rid of infinite rail movement (?).

[Robert]

Originally posted by Sn00py
And to everyone: I have a large 1200x800 pic of the tilted view screen. It's almost 2mb. But if you want it, post your email address in this thread. DON'T PM ME YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS.

Please send it to me!

robert@plompweb.net

thanks in advance!

[FrostyBoy]

Just a few thoguhts:

If I know how to do it, I will go about and change the graphics (hopefully for the last time, Firaxis )

Anyway, I was just looking at the isometric screenshot, looking at the terrain.. thinking.. how did they make it.. how are the tree's made.. etc..

Then it struck me.. this is a 3D engine, they said they are writing it in XML. If I can remember correctly, RoN is also written with XML, and anything that was 3D in RoN, could be changed in the XML file. I remember making the worker units in RoN about 50 times larger. They were Giants (I might still have a screenshot somewhere, if I can find it I will post it).

But anyway, it's obvious what I am suggesting here.. the mountains are 3D, so why not just make the mountains 50 times larger? There you go, big ass mountains, big ass tree's, big ass cities.

Firaxis must just be setting the defaults here, knowing that us fans will just go ahead and change it to our liking.


I'll tell you the truth, when I saw it, I first thought "cool, you can tilt the screen". But then I thought "It kinda sucks". But now I think "This is going to be a seriously powerful game - modding wise".


I don't want to get over the top here, but you could, theoretically, create your own RPG game yknow?

[Modo44]

Thanks for the screenies, SnOOpy!

It would look better with Mountains 4x bigger, Hills 2x bigger, and units 2x smaller for a better scale. OTOH that might make things hard to spot at times. I think the default settings should be as always in Civ - allowing the player to see clearly what is going on. Since modding capabilities are promised, I can always change to a better look myself.

I hope somebody from Firaxis can tell us the system requirements. It seems to be an issue for some hardcore fans, and we are kind of fishing in the dark here.

[Adagio]

Thx for the screenshots Sn00py

[Robert]

In fact it might look better with larger mountains and smaller units, though remember this is not a real-life format. It's a strategic overview. I don't want the units to have the right size compared to the mountains. I want to see: that's a mountain and there's a spearman standing on the mountin.

It's a game. Not The Sims 3 with units instead of humans you have to move around.
For that reason the mountains are good the way they are. I says: this is a mountain-tile.

[Paddy]

yes indeed thanks Sn00py

system requirements would be awesome to have

[alva]

Another one for the picture please.

Kaylynvh atThatPlaceWithHugeAmountsOfSpaceAlsoUsedToSearchF orThingsOnTheinternet.

[Locutus]

I've by now seen the screenshot IRL as well, but wasn't able to scan them unfortunately. The graphics look much better than they appear in sn00py's low quality scans, so things are definitely starting to shape up (graphically, anyway), which is good news considering that magazine screenshots are usually a few months old, so the art team still had about a year to go to improve on this when these shots were taken.

Those who have the bandwidth will definitely want to check out the higher resolution version sn00py has, I hope and assume they will be more representative of the real thing.

Originally posted by Adagio
What bothers me is the graphics makes it more diffecult to see each tile

In the 2nd screenshot that's true, but it was taking under a very low angle. In the first screenshot though, I'm actually surprised by how straight the terrain looks (even though that was taken under and angle as well), individual tiles are fairly easy to recognise.

It seems like there's always 5 people in a group, is that the health points for a unit?

I reckon that once cavalry and tanks and stuff come along, there won't be 5 members per unit any more as that would never fit in a single tile, so it's probably mostly just a cosmetic thing, as in for example RoN (although there it *is* true that damaged units have less members, but it's not a full replacement of the good old-fashioned health-bar, more like a rough indicator; this might be true for Civ4 as well)

Originally posted by Maquiladora
Well at least it doesnt all look like desert island terrain, although it looks a bit too colourful and whats up with those seemingly random pyramid mountains that have popped up out of the ground again like in civ3? Where are the mountain chains... Ill wait to see how modern screenshots look though.

I think colourful is a good thing: blandness of colour was one of the problems with the Civ3 graphics. CtP graphics are pretty colourful as well and I really like those. Plus, it should be noted that these low-quality scans of sn00py have been overlighted, the graphics are a bit darker on paper (as you can sort of see from the last image sn00py posted, although that's actually too dark).

I agree about the mountains though, they look... weird. And indeed, as in Civ3, mountain ranges seem to be sorely missing again.

Originally posted by Solver
while Civ4 might have requirements along the lines of 1GHz and 256 MB RAM to play nice.

For a game that aims to be out in 2006, I think that would be very fair system requirements. Let's face it, what respectable gamer still has a 500 MHz PC? That's the kind of system they sold 5-6 years ago. If you go to a PC shop today, they don't even sell new systems with less than 2.5 GHz and 256 MB RAM anymore (and it's still more than 6 months before the game is released, by that time 4 GHz will probably be the minimum). Civ3 couldn't be played on a 386 either, and I don't think anyone blames Firaxis for that... It would be ridiculous if Civ4 required 3+ GHz and 1.5 GB RAM, but I doubt that'll happen. At most a decent graphics card will be required, but that's true for any new game, and you can already pick up a okay card for around €50 (probably even less by the time Civ4 ships)...

Originally posted by Alex
I have an Athlon 1.7 with 512 MB RAM and a Geforce 2 MX videocard.

Your problem is the graphics card, Geforce 2 is teh ubercrap. Even a Geforce 4 costs less than €30 ATM; a cheap FX card doesn't need to cost more than €50 either, and gives a considerably better performance. I would consider upgrading ASAP, not just for Civ. (Unless of course Civ is the only game you play, then wait 6 months so you can pick up a Radeon 9800 for the same price )

[astrologix]

Snoopy, please send it to me too

vmeierhans XXX hispeed XXX ch

Thankyou !!

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Sn00py
If I know how to do it, I will go about and change the graphics (hopefully for the last time, Firaxis )

I replaced original Civ3 graphics using yours (great) one so quickly after the installation, I can't remember how the original looked!

BTW if you'll be so kind to post the large screenshot to me at "gmail com", my address is "conti.costantini". Thank you in advance.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Nikolai
I somehow think I've read much of that before...

Yeah: religions, civics, smart tech tree... they remembers to me so many interesting point appeared on the original "The List" for Civ III.

They have almost catched with fans needs, haven't they?

Well, well, I'm almost too old to play this stuff again, but my children are growing (9 and almost 8) and they already played Civ III Conquest a little, when not reading books or playing with a Gamecube...

[Nikolai]

Thanks for the pics Sn00py.

Adm.Naismith: Yeah, that's a good thing for sure. I only hope they will implement it properly. Oh, and you can never be too old for Civ.

[Alex]

Originally posted by Locutus

Originally posted by Alex
I have an Athlon 1.7 with 512 MB RAM and a Geforce 2 MX videocard.

Your problem is the graphics card, Geforce 2 is teh ubercrap. Even a Geforce 4 costs less than €30 ATM; a cheap FX card doesn't need to cost more than €50 either, and gives a considerably better performance. I would consider upgrading ASAP, not just for Civ. (Unless of course Civ is the only game you play, then wait 6 months so you can pick up a Radeon 9800 for the same price )

Yes, I agree that my problem is my gfx card. Besides being old, it was already a crappy one when it was released. Unfortunately, here where I live a good gfx card is still very expensive, so I'm postponing the decision to buy a new one till it becomes absolutely necessary.

The requirements for Pirates clearly stated that one would need a gfx card with T&L support, and I don't know if the GForce 2 MX can handle this. Maybe this is the reason for Pirates's low performance on my system.

But I still think that my original point has some relevance: Gamebryo engine seems to be very demanding in terms of hardware; it somehow reminds me of the gfx engine that was created for Grand Prix 4: its performance was abysmal on anything but the most advance machines at the time the game was released.

On the other hand, Firaxis will have a lot more time working with Gamebryo to refine it and to tune it so it can perform smoothly on various different machines. That's what I expect.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Alex
The requirements for Pirates clearly stated that one would need a gfx card with T&L support, and I don't know if the GForce 2 MX can handle this. Maybe this is the reason for Pirates's low performance on my system.

As reported by Strategy Informer, Firaxis requires a 64 MB video card for Pirates, I'm guessing you only have 32...

But I still think that my original point has some relevance: Gamebryo engine seems to be very demanding in terms of hardware; it somehow reminds me of the gfx engine that was created for Grand Prix 4: its performance was abysmal on anything but the most advance machines at the time the game was released.

I don't think 1 GHz, 256 MB and a 64 MB video card (~GeForce 3 or higher) is particularly demanding (= the specs for Pirates). My PC is currently 3 years old and I haven't upgraded since I bought it, but even I meet those specs easily (2 GHz, 512 MB, Gefore 4 MX 64 MB -- I deliberately bought an el cheapo graphics card at first because I knew I wouldn't need a better one for at least 3 years; only now with R:TW and Civ4 in the picture am I starting to look for an upgrade). Sure, it ain't no CtP2 or Civ3, but as I said those were game that were released around 2001, Civ4 is aiming at 2006. Even RoN (almost 3 years old when Civ4 hits the stores) requires 500 MHz/128 MB RAM + 16 MB GFX, and that game was remarkable for it's low minimum specs for an RTS (and esp. good performance at those specs). E.g. Command & Conquer: Generals was released only a few months after RoN but requires 800 Ghz/128+32 MB (and it only runs properly on a system with twice those numbers).