New to Civ saga

[dregor]

Originally posted by CyberShy
One tip: mouse-over everything, that gives valuable information!!!

And if your mouse-overs don't seem to show anything, mouse-over the flag in the bottom middle/right, that should reset the tooltips (weird bug!)

[Robert]

Originally posted by dregor


And if your mouse-overs don't seem to show anything, mouse-over the flag in the bottom middle/right, that should reset the tooltips (weird bug!)

Thanks! Didn't knew about that solution
I always used to select a city to 'undo' the bug.

[Adagio]

Same here, nice to know an easier solution

[dregor]

Personally I wish they'd just fix it already.

[eris]

Originally posted by dregor
Personally I wish they'd just fix it already.

Definitely. A strange bug to stick around so long.

I found another mouse-over point to reset the lower left corner text descriptions. Some people run their mouse over the big flag. You can also do the same by quickly mousing over the list of opponents. Presto, you have self-updating text again. Quitting and restarting the game will do this as well, but that may be an extreme reaction.

[Patroklos]

3D was added because it is cheaper to produce a game that way. Which is why it has become an industry standard. Seen any new 2D games lately? As for looking like crap, you obviously haven't played Oblivion yet. Just because a game is made in 3D doesn't mean it has to look cartoonish, that's simply a design decision. Which means that Civ4 would have looked the same whether it was made in 3D or 2D.

I don't remember saying 3D overall looked like crap, I said CivIV 3D looked like crap. I make better looking models than this game has.

3D has a useful purpose in Oblivion, it was logical to include it and when they did they made decent use of the power of such graphics.

CivIV looks like ass, uselessness of 3D to its gameplay aside. If it is industry standard why does it look so amateurish? Blitzkrieg II went from 2D to 3D while preserving the same depth of detail and esthetics.

[Bkeela]

I truly laugh at diehards still playing Civ 2.

To me, Civ 2 was just a graphical update of the original game. Once the novelty wore off (after maybe 2 or 3 full games) I stopped playing it.

Fortunately I didn't have long to wait until Alpha Centauri was released, which was a game that did seem truly revolutionary to me, and which was pretty much my gaming mainstay until Civ IV. Now the thought of returning to SMAC is unthinkable, suffice to say that the original Civ is only entertaining in a morbid sense.

Diehards still playing Civ 2?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I don't remember saying 3D overall looked like crap, I said CivIV 3D looked like crap.

Your quote:

It is just one of those instances where 3d was added when it does nothing for gameplay. It just the cool new thing, lets tac it on for sales. Games that do this invariably end up looking like crap, as it is not natural to the look/gameplay.

And it's not true to say that it does nothing for gameplay. You wouldn't be able to zoom out to a strategic world view if it was 2D based. Nor would you be able to zoom into another civ's city and see what kinds of building he/she has.

But the main reason why it was included was simply economics; it's cheaper to produce a game in that medium. With 2D, the models/animations are first rendered in a 3D program, converted to 2D still images, than recompiled into a 2D animation. Using 3D diectly saves a large amount of work in creating the animations.

CivIV looks like ass, uselessness of 3D to its gameplay aside.

That's your opinion. I think the graphics look much better than they did in Civ 3. I don't need photo-realistic graphics to enjoy the game. In fact I think it would detract from it. I know in Oblivion, I find myself quite often just hanging out and enjoying the view without actually doing anything in the game.

[Kuciwalker]

Photorealism would make Civ4 impossible to play because it'd be so hard to make out important details.

[Verrucosus]

In my opinion,
- Civ IV has the best gameplay,
- Civ II has stood the test of time,
- Civ I is Civilization in its purest form,
- Civ III is an important and maybe necessary part of Civ history.

I'd agree that the best mixture of fun and challenge is provided by Civ IV, but all of the versions are worth playing for various reasons. I'm amazed to find playing Civ II as immersive as ever although I'm quite sure that Civ IV has better gameplay. (I'm not familiar with the Total War games mentioned in the opening post, but I've read that some players frequently revisit Shogun because of its pure implementation of the series' core ideas.)

Chronicles is a good option for someone who wants to see how Civilization since 1991. Unfortunately, the manuals are only provided as pdf-files and an entire chapter is missing from the Civ III manual. (By the way, the Civ1 version included is the Windows version, not the classic DOS version.)

Verrucosus

[Patroklos]

Your quote:.

Really?

This...

It is just one of those instances where 3d was added when it does nothing for gameplay. It just the cool new thing, lets tac it on for sales.

/= this...

saying 3D overall looked like crap

At least not to someone reading vice making a kneejerk CIV defense.

You wouldn't be able to zoom out to a strategic world view if it was 2D based.

Civ3 had no problem doing this.

Nor would you be able to zoom into another civ's city and see what kinds of building he/she has.

Basically meaning you wouldn't have the ability to use space age spy satillites in 2500BC? I fail to see the draw back. Nore is graphical representations of buildings only available in 3d.

Face it there is no gameplay aspect of CIV that requires or is greatly enhanced by 3d. If it is the industry standard or cheaper fine, but then I agian ask why this is an excuse for it to look like 3d ****?

I know in Oblivion, I find myself quite often just hanging out and enjoying the view without actually doing anything in the game.

Good thing Civ is turn based eh? Plenty of time to do both. But basically you just admitted it looks like ass, and your happy it is that way so you don't get distracted by the pretty lights?

[Patroklos]

Photorealism would make Civ4 impossible to play because it'd be so hard to make out important details.

Thats what icons/flags/highlights are for. Things like that circle with an arrow at the edge of the screen to announce events/units (a good thing about CIV I like).

Blitzkreig and Panzer General got along just fine with photorealistic graphics coupled with informative icons, status bars, etc.

[Sabre2th]

Patroklos is just trolling.... don't bother replying

[Willem]

Originally posted by Patroklos
But basically you just admitted it looks like ass, and your happy it is that way so you don't get distracted by the pretty lights?

Excuse me, putting words in my mouth now? I've already stated that I think the graphics are better than they were in Civ 3. That's good enough for me. If you don't like them and think they look like crap, just don't play the game.

[ZEE]

erm... i was going to post something entirely on-topic and interesting here... what was it...

OH YES! Patroklos post COULD be considered a troll i suppose, but i assure you i could do much... MUCH worse. and i know others that could do worse that even I could do. and this whole argument as to "which Civ game is better" is so old, annoying, and so completely NERDY that it makes me want to gag myself with a spork every time i read them...

just play the damn game you like and stop filling the threads with this nonsense! piece!