New to Civ saga

[Robert]

Indeed, back to the topic please.

[Targonis]

Being able to zoom in and out the way YOU want to, without pre-set zoom-points really doesn't work well without 3D. 3D may not have been "required", but it does help the overall feel of the game, and will draw in people who have not played previous Civ games.

Consider that most people today will avoid a game that looks like crap. It doesn't matter how good the gameplay may be if it LOOKS horrible. Being able to zoom in and out is just one of those key things that people want to be able to do. Doing a full 360 degree rotation however is NOT required.

I honestly feel the game looks pretty good. I suspect that while you may not like the look, you should at least be able to admit that the game doesn't look horribly old either. If a game LOOKS outdated, it won't sell. That's a factor many people who don't appreciate the graphics improvement from Civ 3 to Civ 4 have forgotten about. Does Civ 4 look better than Civ 3? Most people say, "yes". Could it be better? Of course, but you need to look at the way the series has evolved.

Civ 1 was Civ 1, and looked decent for it's time. Civ 2 was updated, but didn't really make any amazing jump forward in appearance. Civ 3 was an improvement in graphics, but the gameplay had issues. Civ 4 was a HUGE improvement in pretty much all ways. Civ 4 was not Civ 3 with a facelift and some new features, it was a complete overhaul from previous Civ games.

Gameplay is really a huge thing, and not being able to see your units because they are hidden in the trees(as they move through wooded terrain) would NOT work. If units in cities were dwarfed by the buildings in a city, that too would not be good. So, the visuals work.

Artwork is a style thing as much as a functional issue. The entire game is consistent when it comes to feel, so it doesn't feel "thrown together". We don't need photo-quality graphics, and as it stands now, many people complained when Civ 4 came out because their computers could not handle the demands of the Civ 4 graphics. So, don't complain because the graphics COULD have been better, because when the game was released, anything more would have killed performance for even those with middle-of-the-line systems. If a Radeon 9600 video card wasn't enough for Civ 4, it would NOT have sold well.

Originally posted by Patroklos


Really?

This...



/= this...



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



Civ3 had no problem doing this.



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 ****?



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?

[ColdPhoenix]

You could buy Civilization Chronicles which has all the Civs from the original up to Civ4 (and the expansion packs for the first 3) and the civ card game (is it any good?).

Would buy it myself if I didn't already have most of the stuff in it. It's only £15 ($30) delivered to your door from Amazon in the UK, probably similar elsewhere. Not bad considering Civ4 by itself is more expensive at £17 from the same website...

[MightyTiny]

I for one am not that concerned with Civ4 graphics. I honestly wouldn't even have thought about it if the "the graphics are crap vs. great" argument didn't pop up in these forums now and then.

3D seems to be necessary, if not for gameplay reasons, then simply for marketing reasons. It sells. As for cartoonish vs. realistic look... I really don't care. It looks fine to me.

[Patroklos]

Being able to zoom in and out the way YOU want to, without pre-set zoom-points really doesn't work well without 3D. 3D may not have been "required", but it does help the overall feel of the game, and will draw in people who have not played previous Civ games.

True, but again that is an "Ooooo shiny" thing, not a gameplay enhancing thing.

Consider that most people today will avoid a game that looks like crap. It doesn't matter how good the gameplay may be if it LOOKS horrible. Being able to zoom in and out is just one of those key things that people want to be able to do.

I totally agree, I suppose I should be more specific. While I do think the 3d is amatuerish, it does pull off the cartoon style well (just like some 6 year olds are damn good at coloring books). I just don't like the style. Especially with 3D games like the new C&C showing what a game can do with 3d when they care. Or BK doing without degrading performance.

Doing a full 360 degree rotation however is NOT required.

For the same reason limitless zoom options are not required.

[quote]I honestly feel the game looks pretty good. I suspect that while you may not like the look, you should at least be able to admit that the game doesn't look horribly old either. If a game LOOKS outdated, it won't sell. That's a factor many people who don't appreciate the graphics improvement from Civ 3 to Civ 4 have forgotten about. Does Civ 4 look better than Civ 3? Most people say, "yes". Could it be better? Of course, but you need to look at the way the series has evolved.[quote]

It does look new. Boring and amatureish, like the majority of titles out these days.

Civ 4 was a HUGE improvement in pretty much all ways. Civ 4 was not Civ 3 with a facelift and some new features, it was a complete overhaul from previous Civ games.

Civ4 is a new game, barely in line with the series. And an abomination at that. There are a hundred things I can say I like about the game, but the fact is that it is buried at the back of my closet after maybe ten hours of play, of which I was bored and unimpressed the whole time (when it actually worked, if you remember). It lacks everything that made Civ addictive.

Gameplay is really a huge thing, and not being able to see your units because they are hidden in the trees(as they move through wooded terrain) would NOT work. If units in cities were dwarfed by the buildings in a city, that too would not be good. So, the visuals work.

We have been over this, none of the other Civs had this problem, most other games don't either.

Artwork is a style thing as much as a functional issue. The entire game is consistent when it comes to feel, so it doesn't feel "thrown together". We don't need photo-quality graphics, and as it stands now, many people complained when Civ 4 came out because their computers could not handle the demands of the Civ 4 graphics. So, don't complain because the graphics COULD have been better, because when the game was released, anything more would have killed performance for even those with middle-of-the-line systems. If a Radeon 9600 video card wasn't enough for Civ 4, it would NOT have sold well.

If it is a style not graphic issue, it costs nothing go from bugs bunny to gundum wing.

[Patroklos]

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

Visit the OT, this is NOT trolling.

[Shrapnel12]

What makes Civilization addictive that Civ IV does not have?

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Visit the OT, this is NOT trolling.

I don't bother with the OT for a reason.

Call it whatever you want, but you've made up your mind and you won't even listen to what other people say. You're right, they're wrong, and that's the end of it. It's like talking to a wall.



Sorry for continuing...my last post here

[Willem]

Originally posted by Patroklos
There are a hundred things I can say I like about the game, but the fact is that it is buried at the back of my closet after maybe ten hours of play, of which I was bored and unimpressed the whole time (when it actually worked, if you remember). It lacks everything that made Civ addictive.

Then why do you even bother coming here and making comments about it? If that's not trolling I don't know what is. Go hang out in some game forum that you actually like playing and quit wasting everyone's time here.

PS: How about that, I've actually put someone from this forum on my ignore list. You should go hang out at CivFanatics with the rest of the trolls, you'll fit right in.

[Virdrago]

Uh, after reading all that, I have no idea what this thread is about anymore. Maybe it should be brought back on-topic or closed?

[Addled Platypus]

married, dating, single ???

impotant factors to consider

IMO

Civ4

and welcome aboard mate...hope to see ya around

never seen a new post attract so much input...

[Patroklos]

For all of you who seem to have forgotton, the OP.

What should I do?

-Play Civilization II
-Buy Civilization III + Play the World + Conquest
-Buy Civilization IV + Warlords
-Buy Civilization Chronicles (this version includes the user's manual?)

What Is the best Civ game?

Can you help me?

Thanks all.

So why do I...

even bother coming here and making comments about it?

Because if I didn't this young new initiat to apolyton/civ would have nothing but the opinions of zealot CIV fanboys to make his decision from.

Call it whatever you want, but you've made up your mind and you won't even listen to what other people say. You're right, they're wrong, and that's the end of it. It's like talking to a wall.

Pot, meet kettle

If that's not trolling I don't know what is. Go hang out in some game forum that you actually like playing and quit wasting everyone's time here.

I have heard civ can be a religious experiance, just wasn't aware it was on the level of the Spanish Inquisition. How dare I speak heresy about the one true Civ! Oh well, I suppose I could leave and let you guys get back to combing each others hair and telling each other how beautiful you are.

PS: How about that, I've actually put someone from this forum on my ignore list. You should go hang out at CivFanatics with the rest of the trolls, you'll fit right in.

I mean, just look at how funny your reactions are to a simple critisism.

In any event, wii46, you should probably steer clear of CIV if for no other reason than this is the company you would have to keep.

[Verrucosus]

As far as welcome threads go, this wasn't our finest hour.

[Shrapnel12]

What is the generally accepted definition of trolling?

[Patroklos]

1. trolling

Being a ***** on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can.

2. trolling

Trolling is the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet, generally on message boards. When done in a moderated internet community, this can result in banning. When done to uptight people such as fundies, this can result in hilarity.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling