Comments on new graphics.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

Dracon, what do you like about it above CIV II. seeing how it is CIV II with messed up graphics and a $50 price tag. Man... I feel like I've been held up at gun point. No one made me buy it but I still feel suckered.

The multiple maps are ok I guess but you only get those with one of the game types. With CIV II extended it's CIV II with an extra alien map... $50 for that?! But as I've said here already a bunch - the graphics, why????

[KenThur]

John & Alex & Hasbro "management":
I/we really appreciate your taking the time to interact they us PROVEN CUSTOMERS here.

But i'v got to agree w/ much of the above...
WHAT IS WITH THE DARKNESS??!! Screw the magazine reviewers & their drive to pressure U game producers into always pushing the techno limits! They are NOT your PAYING customers... WE are.

The animated units & tiles are a nice (cute?) touch. That 16-bit REQUIREMENT is unadulterated crap! It obviously makes most of us strain NEEDLESSLY, slows down the game, & forces many to have to upgrade video boards(or just NOT BUY your product!).
The cheap little game review nerds just mooch a freebie from U & then critcise U if it doesn't max out the very latest technology; which of course, they also get free from the manufacturers.

Speaking of costs... I agree, FULL price for HALF a game? That's a bit much. Perhaps your new masters at Hasbro ought to read these reactions (especially those re: the potential customers that WILL NOT buy because of he above). Then take a refresher course in micro-economics... especially the chapters on price/volume/profit & fixed vs.varible costs & the impact on profitability of "Goodwill" + word-of-mouth advertising.

I see/understand why U didn't put out a demo. Since the dark, dreary look of SMAC's demo was 1 of the major reasons this & many consumers didn't buy that product. Then there's the "Imperialsm II" demo, with it's fixed windows size & cutsie, but meaningless eye candy which quickly showed it was NOT worth the money as sequel.
But not allowing "test drives" just increases the ill-will factor. Those of us who will take it back for a refund & wait for the price to drop to a level more in keeping w/ what this product REALLY is... are now REALLY pissed at the inconvience of doing just that. Plus, Hasbro, your distributors will be REALLY pissed because they'll now have twice as much of your product on their shelves & half of it will be returned merchandise.

Suggestion: since i'm AMAZED at all this interest/activity surrounding immediately modifying a product that they just bot. & realising programming in all the "tools" plus the ability to modify the basic product, must be the biggest nightmare of all... why don't U take a lesson from the auto industry? SEPARATE the 2.

As an old custom car/street racer, i can relate with the urge the mess with a perfectly good product right out of the box. But nobody critisized the auto manufacturers for not throwing in all the tools & instructions on how mess w/ their brand new product. Let alone, making ALL the buyers pay for those add-on's.!!
Most of us don't care to screw with a brand new game that already has all sorts of options & neat things built in. Between downloading some hacker's virus & not trusting some1 else's mod to be a "level playing field". Personally, I'll NEVER do it, nor would i EVER play the mod's some1 else has done.

So segment your market fools! Sell most of us a reasonably priced, bug-free game (sequel).
For the "hotrod / custom car" crowd; sell them a reasonable priced mod kit & let'm have-at-it.
STOP TRYING TO PLEASE 2 MASTERS! We'll ALL be happier & more satisfied... include U corporate employees just trying to do your jobs.

PS: tho i'v just given U & your Hasbro bosses apx $15,000 worth of product design & marketing solutions; a bill will not be forthcoming. Just APPLY THE ADVICE. Meanwhile, i'll wait until the price has dropped to what is a fair price for a game sequel that i will use as-is.

[Lord Raven]

KenThur raises som very good points, and if the people at Microprose and Hasbro read this they might get an idea about what they should do.

But i must condess that i have no problems with using a mod, as long as i doesnt change the gameplay. If the visuals improves, i see nothing wrong using a mod. Espesially when the original graphics renders the game allmost unplayable.

[gambler]

How was nice Civ1 graphic, with those nice units with the whole background of the same colour of their tribe...

But now I'm wondering why TOT betatesters didn't discover these problems: as soon as I started the first game, I immediately realized I didn't like them.

Now I'm playing without unit animations, with the original civ2 terrains and with St Leo modpack units, thus the only advantage versus civ2 is the multimap.

[DarthVeda]

Is it the flag graphic shading that's doing this? The Flag controls everything from the City name colors, to the city map colors, to the unit flag colors.

[gambler]

Uh, I didn't changed the flags because the city flags were the only things of the right colour...
Well, this evening I'll try to work on them.

[Rusty Nail]

to gambler: Can you tell me how to put in the original civ2 terrain and unit graphics in the extended game? I am quite fed up with the TOT units. Did you notice that the destroyer icon (similarly with other ships) is partly in FIVE different squares, NONE of which is the one it occupies. Together with the indistinguishable colours, it makes it impossible to see what is going on when there are many units on the board, and takes all the pleasure out of the game. I hope the designers of civ3 are listening! What a shame that the clarity of civ2 was cast overboard! How does your change affect the centaurian terrain (which I think is OK)and non-civ2 units?

[C M Castleton]

I was really looking forward to TOT! I thought Civ II gaming with graphics more or less to compete with CTP, or at least not disgrace themselves, would be just the ticket. I read in a crit that the graphics were awful and so they lost at least one customer. I think they lost rather more than just the one, though.

I do hope they get the graphics right for Civ3. A great concept just isnt enough these days. If they dont give we the people the graphics for which CTP has set the new standard, whatever its other admittedly serious faults, then they will fail, and deservedly so!

[Dracon]

I play ToT on 1024 by 768, and true colour, and it works just fine.
ToT is fine, I like it. I like the multiple maps idea, and the new games are cool. I don't know about you guys, but I love the idea of a Fantasy Civ played on four realms, with loads of new units and technologies.

[Lord Raven]

Dracon: I tried the game in the setting you mantion, but i must confess that i dont like it one bit !

After playing the original Civ2 i expected TOT with graphics that fits with this kind of game. As of now, the current graphics is barely usable, but it makes you have to check on things that SHOULD be totally unessesary. For example:

*The different/unreadable colours of the units and cities.

*The way the units do NOT stay in one grid. They look like theire in two or more at the same time.

*I'm not able to fully see what kind of unit i'm moving around.

Mabie i'm a spoiled brat with nothing to do but complain.

Or mabie these are faults in the game that should have been eliminated i the playtesting.

If you Dracon where the playtester, wouldnt you asked for if not better graphics, at least a more visible one ?

I think since this is not i new game, the people at Microprose should at least do the promised changes better than what i'm seeing today. And i will not go into the UST bug.


Hopefully this will be rectefied in the patch.

[Dracon]

*The different/unreadable colours of the units and cities.
- They are readable. I can perfectly see which unit belongs to which civ and the cities as well.

*The way the units do NOT stay in one grid. They look like theire in two or more at the same time.
- Can't say I've noticed this problem

*I'm not able to fully see what kind of unit i'm moving around.
- Maybe your monitor isn't bright enough, because it's very easy to tell the differences between each unit.

[geofelt]

Once you become adept at a game, you want quick recognition of the pieces and the board situation. TOT is a step backward in my opinion. The designers were given more capability with new colors, and they tried to use them, but not very successfully. An attempt was made, perhaps, for more realism, but perhaps there should be a toggle option to use clear vs. realistic graphics. Parts of the new city screen are improvements, but I find myself liking the old screen a bit better.
Nobody likes to admit to making a mistake, but in this case, it should be done. It's not too late, a patch could make the changes optional, thus preserving the original release for those who bought it.
I for one, play civ2 almost daily, and have gone back to the original game.

[Lord Raven]

I'm not going back to the original. But what i have done though, is to change the graphics so that i can see what i'm doing.

I now realize that some people are acually liking the "new" graphics, so i guess it's just mine "old fashion" way of looking at Civ.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hmm, since I first got it I liked the graphics. In fact it is one of the only reasons I play the game.. the updated graphics. Even so, I'd still prefer SMAC, with worse graphics and better gameplay to ToT with great graphics and same gameplay.

[Dracon]

ToT definately has more flexibility than SMAC, you must admit