Civ4 is incredibly ugly

[Wiglaf]

I have just started playing civ 4 again after not playing it for about a year.

And wow, is this thing hideous.

Especially in the later ages, there are roads almost everywhere and it just looks like a mess. Cities don't look like cities, and the terrain is just bland.

Blue marble in my opinion makes it even worse. At first it's nice but it just darkens things way too much.

Is there anything to do to pretty this up?

[Will9]

Re: Civ4 is incredibly ugly

Originally posted by Wiglaf
I have just started playing civ 4 again after not playing it for about a year.

And wow, is this thing hideous.

Especially in the later ages, there are roads almost everywhere and it just looks like a mess. Cities don't look like cities, and the terrain is just bland.

Blue marble in my opinion makes it even worse. At first it's nice but it just darkens things way too much.

Is there anything to do to pretty this up?

I've never really thought of civ4 as ugly. I've always thought of it as better than civ3 graphics. What do you mean by cities don't look like cities? What graphics setting are you on?

[Dis]

what does a city supposed to look like. The city I live in looks like no other city in the world. hmm, maybe we need a casino building in civ games.

[Wiglaf]

I guess ill get used to this. I'm on medium graphic settings.

I am admittedly surprised not a lot of people have this issue?!! Much too much clutter.

[Harovan]

Roads and rails are hideous. The rest is sufficiently pretty, albeit not prize-winning.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Roads and rails are hideous.

They're much better than they were in Civ 3, especially the railroads.

[Jaybe]

For one who does NOT put railroads everywhere, the rails ARE hideous! Not in their "artistic" value, but they link to roads and river bridges, not to themselves. It makes it difficult to see what the route is.

[alms66]

Wow...Wiglaf...
I haven't seen that name in years...

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Willem
They're much better than they were in Civ 3, especially the railroads.

No. I would like them replaced with the Civ3 ones. They at least connected adjacent tiles properly.

[LDiCesare]

Railroads are pitiful because at far zoom, I often have problems making the difference between a tile with railroad and a tile without (particularly forest tiles).
Apart from that, I don't care for pretty, I care for it running and not wasting resources, so I guess that's why I don't have an issue with Civ being ugly. It's still prettier than NetHack for instance.

[Harovan]

No matter if pretty or not pretty, but railroad graphics, that don't show as continuous lines, don't serve their purpose.

[Bkeela]

One thing I do miss from Civ 2 was the thrill of having your city upgrade when you struck a new age. I suppose this happens in Civ IV, but it is barely noticable because city graphics just become a big grey sprawl.

I think the terrain and bonus resources are very pretty though.

[Solver]

Funny, I think upgrading to a new age is more noticeable now. Your cities may only marginally change graphics, but your terrain improvements do change, which is very visible.

[Dis]

I barely pay attention, I'm so engrossed in the game.

Not that graphics aren't important. There's a reason I'm playing this game and not civ2 (though it has better gameplay than civ2 as well).

I just think this game could be more efficient. I want to run large and huge maps. .

[Kuken]

I love Civ 4