Slould Civ V be less graphics intensive?

[Targonis]

I think that resolution should be less of a focus of the graphics designers than simple art-quality. For example, things should look appealing and friendly; easy on the eye. In this respect, civ 4 was a massive leap forward over civ 3, which looked like monkey-puke to me.

This is one of those things that will continue to improve as time goes on(if people let it). Little things though, like being able to rotate the view the full 360 degrees would be an improvement.

CPU power is so cheap these days, it really surprises me when people complain. You can get a dual-core 2.3GHz AMD based computer tower in the $400 range these days. Or you can go with a $650 laptop, and you end up with a pretty acceptable computer overall. The graphics MAY not be great(Geforce 6150LE for the tower, Radeon 3200 on the laptop), but still better than most of the old 4 year old machines that people just don't want to abandon.

[xmen510]

I voted: about the same. I am finally going to be getting a half-decent system. I don't want to have to upgrade again right away, nor could I aford it.

[Ijuin]

The problem with CIV4 was not that its graphic requirements were high, but rather that it didn't want to run on a computer that had the listed minimum specifications. In other words, the minimum specifications listed on the package were insufficient for the actual game, and thus were misleading.

[The_Reckoning]

It unrealistic, for sure. Civ5 is definitely going to be more graphics intensive than Civ4. But, I don't think that it should ever be the focus. The thing about 3D games is the graphics generally age badly. I can't stand looking at 3D games from 1999. 2D however ages fine. I can still play Civ3, Starcraft, Diablo II, SMAC and many other 2D games from that era without disliking the graphics.

I'd love to see a Rise of Nations style 2D background with 3D units for Civ5. Since 3D is so much easier to animate and modify, but at the same time if something's static, it looks better with the hand-crafted look of a 2D background.

[Straybow]

SMAC was 3D graphics. On the computer I had at the time, which was above the minimum listed specs, SMAC was slow as molasses.

[Heraclitus]

I've recently tried to play Civ2 again, it seemed perfect in 2000 and ok back in 2003 when I last played it, but now in 2009 it seem disgusting. Running the game ruined my memories of it.

[ColdWizard]

I still like civ2 graphics more than civ4 graphics.

[N35t0r]

TBH though, vanilla civ2 graphics were miles away from what modders have created.

[Ecthy]

It certainly shouldn't be more spelling intensive....

[Theben]

Fav Flight maxed out the Civ II graphics, and that's still behind Civ4... but not by as much as you'd think.

The game engine is well ahead of CivII and should be.

[wodan11]

Honestly, I'd rather better gameplay than a lot of (limited) design dollars spent on the engine. (Your next question is "what is better gameplay" but that's another thread.) Instead of spending $2,000,000 on 3D programmer's salaries, spend $1.25M on the 3D programmers and $750k on game theory designers.

That said, I wouldn't say no to some really cool graphics. I can visualize the combat animations being akin to the big combat scenes in Lord of the Rings or 10000BC.

[SusieQue]

I tried to play Civ 4, and to be honest, I thought it was ugly. It was too crowded and overwhelming. Compared to the graphical simplicity of Civ3, it's a mess. I'm all for beauty, but function must precede it.