Would this game be better if the graphics were worse?

[kimmygibler]

The question doesn't ask whether the game would sell with worse graphics. Just whether you would like it more if it had worse graphics.

[Martinus]

Well, I wouldn't. I like the graphics as it is now, and I don't see why I would like it less if it had worse graphics.

[Tuberski]

No.

The graphics don't hinder anything. Someone mentioned that they have to mouseover terrain to see what it produces, that is one of my favorite enhancements.

In previous Civs you had to go to the city screen or right-click the tile to see what it produced.

ACK!

[alva]

Originally posted by 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?

Have you asked the wife about it? Oh and be sure to look her straight in the eyes...often a good give away to see wether she has or not.

[curtadams]

If the graphics were less demanding, I could buy it. I have a run-of-the-mill 2 year old system which doesn't meet minimum specs. I'm not going to pay $1000 dollars to play Civ4, so Firaxis won't get get my money for some time. This is a bad move for the general public because the general public doesn't buy super-duper whiz-bang graphics computers - that's the gamer market. Civ has always been a game that appeals to non-gamers, and Firaxis is doing itself a big disservice but shutting itself out of the market of ordinary people who buy an ordinary computer every couple of years.

[cribgod]

i voted no, tho as a huge fan and long time gamer (since the atari 2600 days) i see the grafic enhancements of this game mearly add to a solid base of good game play. you can tell the game play/stratagy came before the eyecandy, by the probs some ppl have playing the game i.e more time was spent thinking "is this going to live up to the civ name" than "will this run on every system in the world" ive had just as many probs and crashes as most and i built my pc to play first person shooters where 10 fps means killing or being killed.

[quinalla]

Graphics really are the icing on the cake of a good game to me, but I do think the game is better for the good graphics. And I don't mean high tech graphics, I mean using the tech to the fullest and having excellent art direction.

[VRWCAgent]

Personally, I think they hit the sweet spot on graphics with Civ II: Test Of Time. Civ III was a bit over the top, but not terribly distracting, but this is just too much.

That said, I won't stop playing it.

[spy14]

Graphics as Quinalla says are icing, gameplay is what counts. Games such as Sensible soccer and Monkey Island are still well worth a play today even though they look pixellated. Some games get marketed on how pretty the graphics are, and people get bored of them after 10 minutes (racks brains for an example ) - wel, i'm sure i've seen it happen!

[Kardinal]

Isn't this the first Civ with a real 3D engnie in it? While it does look pretty, I'm wondering what that really buys us. I know that even on my home dedicated gaming box, the unit movement is slower than I would like, though the simultaneous movement system for automated units seems to alleviate the pain of that.

I would have preferred a 2D engine with improved resolution, myself. I also miss the detailed city screen, instead of the "zoom in" screen.

Gameplay is king. I'm pretty sure that question was solved long ago. Good graphics cannot save bad gameplay, but they are appreciated. Unless they detract from the gameplay which, I'm afraid, in this case, it does a bit. The interface is just slower.

Still a very good game.

[Khab]

I upgraded to play Civ2, once upon a time. I may buy a new video card mainly to boost Civ4 performance (it's very slightly sluggish when zooming about).

Anyway, it's PC games, live with it or get a console. 'sides, it IS purdy, innit?

[Rommel2D]

I don't see why the game shouldn't offer a very simple GUI up front as an option...

[kseecs16]

I like the new graphics - the leaders look far better and the map is beautiful - I would feel slightly miffed if they had not improved the graphics from CIV 3.

[Pistolero]

The game will not run on my laptop. Civ III will, so will Pirates, Age of Mythology and Rise of Nations. I expect the problem is the graphics card. It is very disappointing that it's a strategy game that hits the limit. My laptop is less than 2 years old. I am sure I am not alone in this problem.

I am sure they will lose sales when people realize they need a gamer's type of PC to play the game, and do not want to buy one.

[Crossfire]

Originally posted by spy14
Graphics as Quinalla says are icing, gameplay is what counts. Games such as Sensible soccer and Monkey Island are still well worth a play today even though they look pixellated. Some games get marketed on how pretty the graphics are, and people get bored of them after 10 minutes (racks brains for an example ) - wel, i'm sure i've seen it happen!

Try Rome:Total War. The graphics were amazing but the game was brain dead! While I played MTW for 2 years, I played RTW for about 2 weeks before I was bored.

Fortunately, Civ4 is good looking without being brain dead.