Would this game be better if the graphics were worse?

[kimmygibler]

Yes?
No?

Many people seem to finding that the game runs very slow on their machines, or they not even able to play it at all becaue they don't meet the graphic card requirements. Since graphics are of minimal importance to a strategy game, would you actually like the game more if the graphics were simpler, and more like civ2 or civ3 style?

[Tennyson]

I voted yes simply because the graphics are so complex it's sometimes hard to tell what's on the square and so I have to mouse over it. For example, the difference between copper and iron.

[DRoseDARs]

Yes. So much focus on OMG LOOK AT OUR GRAPHICS THEY ARE TEH BOMB YOU BETTER HAVE TEH LEEETEST VIDCARD OR ELSE UR A N00B AND CANT PLAY THIS GAME really detracts from the quality of any game. This means the actual money that goes into developing the game gets disproportionately spent in favor of the graphics over the gameplay (specifically, hiring graphics people when one more coder could have greatly contributed to the project's quality).

[Franklinnoble]

Yes - I don't need the high-overhead eye candy. I would have been happy to see this game implemented on the old Civ3 graphics engine.

[Colonâ„¢]

They could have used the Civ1 engine for all I care.

[Cabbagemeister]

Voted Yes.

I wanted to start a new game tonight. I've already played two games in the last week, but tonight the sucker just doesn't want to start.

How can I develop a deep an abiding addiction if the super-spiffy graphics mean I can't play all day, every day?

[CrONoS]

Why dont you put a bananas options...

Dont care if the graphics are worse or better. As long as the game can be run on my computer.

I'm pretty sure the game will be "optimise" in some patch in the near future. Firaxis have been a great company with Civ3... Even with PTW...

And I really think Civ4 have some technical flaws, flaws that can be fixed with patch.

Have a nice day,

[CrONoS]

Double Post

[CrONoS]

Triple Post... Sorry!
Playing Civ4 on my laptop. Listening NHL and trying editing post...

[Thorpe]

I don't think it would have been better without the enhanced graphics, but I don't think the game is tremondously better with them.

[George Geczy]

This is actually a very interesting question for all strategy game developers - graphics ("eye candy") versus gameplay has been raised about GalCiv, Moo3, Europa and Hearts of Iron, etc etc. And not just the raw issue of whether graphics actually add to the game or get in the way, but also the user base... people who play FPS games are expected to upgrade their systems and video cards regularly to keep up. People who play strategy games tend not to be in this frame of mind (though of course there is overlap between the two groups). My own experience is that most strategy game players say that they value gameplay over graphics, but actual first impressions tend to be driven very much by the graphics; so much so that even "deep" strategy players may not get in to a game if the eye candy factor isn't there.

I think that the bottom line with Civ is that it has crossed the magic line to "mainstream popularity" that few strategy games cross, and this has forced it to improve its graphics in Civ4. The fact that a huge chunk of potential customers fall below the minimum specs is "collateral damage", but of course a lot of that group will upgrade in the next six months anyways.

Hey, Civ4 may sell a lot of video card upgrades as Christmas presents

-- George.

[Beta]

Yes - need a banana option - as I am not sure yet.

And yes - already shopping for a better video card - and I have a pretty good one now.

Not too excited about the high overhead shot - and would have been just as happy with 3 zoom levels - or something like that.

So to reiterate - YES- AN EXCELLENT QUESTION! Wish it would garner more interest.

[Mike4879]

I don't buy it, I think its only expected and natural that they continue to update the graphics. The thing that always bugs me is how long it takes to go from turn to turn on large and huge world maps. This seems to be strictly a CPU and memory issue, but graphics in some ways also degrade the performance on these maps.

Thank GOD though, that at least for people with compatible hardware, the turns still aren't as long as they are on a Civ3 huge map, which seemed to be absolutely unbareable.

[WolfEyes]

Although the game runs fine for me I also voted yes, I think the civ 3 engine would have worked just fine and would have enabled the game to work for more people without requiring upgrades or directx problems. I really don't care much for the trend toward super eye-candy and mediocre (or worse) game play. I'm not saying that civ 4 is mediocre, far from it, it's great, but think of how much sooner we could have been playing it if the programmers didn't have to come up with a new graphics engine..

[Martinus]

Voted no.

The game is not made for a handful of fans, it is made for public. And in order to be sold to the public, it has to have graphics that is on the modern level (that doesn't mean anything overly too flashy or unnecessary, but solid, 2005 graphics, like Civ 4 has). Otherwise, it would mean the game doesn't sell, and it would mean there wouldn't be Civ 5.