Anyone else underwhelmed by the unit graphics?

[Bubba]

A response

For those of you who think that the graphics are excellent, look at the new screenshot. Can you tell me what the units are coming out of "Hunt Valley" or "Waukegan"? (BTW, can you really read the city names easily?)

Wouldn't you agree that this is a very difficult task because the units are fuzzy, dark and share the same colour palette as the cities and terrain? Moreover, does the Knight unit stand out from the background? Would you have noticed it, beside the iron, without looking hard?

The first test of whether of not the units are great is the ability to identify them and to tell them apart from one another visually. Civ III's unit graphics are not there yet. In this respect, Civ II's and CTP II's graphics were superior (even though Civ II's graphics were not animated and CTP II's were cartoon-like and perhaps too large).

[SerapisIV]

Looks like a samurai almost

[Steve Clark]

I still say that the detailed custom graphics that someone like Capt Nemo built for his Civ2 WW2 scenarios cannot be improved upon for Civ given it's scale - animated or not. You are dealing with units that will be displayed at about 1/2-inch on the screen.

[Dan Magaha FIRAXIS]

Re: A response

Originally posted by Bubba
For those of you who think that the graphics are excellent, look at the new screenshot. Can you tell me what the units are coming out of "Hunt Valley" or "Waukegan"? (BTW, can you really read the city names easily?)

Wouldn't you agree that this is a very difficult task because the units are fuzzy, dark and share the same colour palette as the cities and terrain? Moreover, does the Knight unit stand out from the background? Would you have noticed it, beside the iron, without looking hard?

The first test of whether of not the units are great is the ability to identify them and to tell them apart from one another visually. Civ III's unit graphics are not there yet. In this respect, Civ II's and CTP II's graphics were superior (even though Civ II's graphics were not animated and CTP II's were cartoon-like and perhaps too large).

One of the problem with critiquing the unit graphics based on screenshots is you don't get any sense of the animation or sound, both of which have a big impact on how you perceive a given unit. The knight, for example, is quite hard to miss when he's galloping around the map. I personally never have any problems seeing my units on the map when I'm playing, but then there is a world of difference between a screenshot and a game with motion and sound.


Dan

[Steve Clark]

Animation and Sound? How could the Knight unit be galloping around the map when it's sitting on a tile waiting for the next turn? What about those (most?) that will be turning animation off? And finally, what about those that will not or in my case, cannot rely on game sounds? Each unit should be clearly distinguishable regardless of animation or sound.

[Gramphos]

Animation? Does it mean that the new engine is running?

[joseph1944]

I am sure that all graphics will just find in the final release.

[Iskandar Reza]

I think they're nice. i know they're just a representation of unit(s) you have on the board, i think it's kind of silly that the representation of a warrior could be as large as the representation of a city.

an army marching out of a city.
what is that? a warrior comming out of his hut?

[Kyle]

They're not all that bad, but overall I think this game has to look good as well as play well.


I think they're on the right track.

[tniem]

So far I have liked the unit graphics but still am worried about the actual map. I still would like the map to be more fluid and have some differences in elevation. I know that most of you disagree but playing on a flat map after SMAC is not something I look forward to.

As for color use, the City View colors are absolutely gorgeous. Why are these main colors not being used in the screen shot maps? Instead are these lighter brighter colors that are not that appealing nor do they want to make me become a part of my country.

[Darkknight]

Re: Re: A response

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS


One of the problem with critiquing the unit graphics based on screenshots is you don't get any sense of the animation or sound, both of which have a big impact on how you perceive a given unit. The knight, for example, is quite hard to miss when he's galloping around the map. I personally never have any problems seeing my units on the map when I'm playing, but then there is a world of difference between a screenshot and a game with motion and sound.


Dan

Maybe you should try releasing the game and see if we still don't like the graphics then ah go on.

[Kc7mxo]

grahpics. hah. i've had my fill of stunning grahpics from the week i played black and white. yes, they were stunning, the sunsets simply blew me away. but the fact that actual game was utterly scripted, and shallow as a mud puddle kind of detracted from my enjoyment of the game. but dang, those were some nice sunsets.

[joseph1944]

One of the problem with critiquing the unit graphics based on screenshots is you don't get any sense of the animation or sound, both of which have a big impact on how you perceive a given unit. The knight, for example, is quite hard to miss when he's galloping around the map. I personally never have any problems seeing my units on the map when I'm playing, but then there is a world of difference between a screenshot and a game with motion and sound.

In both CTP games, all units are animated and have sound effects and I never turn off the Units sound.

Animation and Sound? How could the Knight unit be galloping around the map when it's sitting on a tile waiting for the next turn? What about those (most?) that will be turning animation off? And finally, what about those that will not or in my case, cannot rely on game sounds? Each unit should be clearly distinguishable regardless of animation or sound.

[The Horse will walk over to the next tile.
If they turn the animation off then they will be missing a part of the game.
If you cannot hear, then maybe you and other deaf people could start asking computer gaming co. to place script at the bottom of the screen so you understand what is going on. (Just like TV)

[Fuzzball]

Originally posted by Venom
I'm a bit underwhelmed by the graphics in general. Everything seems fuzzy and blurry, though I suppose that's a real time lighting effect.

Grrrr. It's good if something looks fuzzy!!!

[Fuzzball]

I've receved many reviews recently from the E3 convention. Gamespot, Gamespy, Zdnet and a few others. I've followed the convention throughout it's entirety via the web, as I couldn't be there in person But what upset me alot about the strategy reviews, screenshots, ratings, and the Gamespot, Gamespy, and Zdnet awards....was that Civ3 didn't rate highly at all. I'll admit that alot of these web corporations may be biased towards one game or another....But when I looked through alot of the video streams, screenshots, and more detailed analysis of many of the upcoming games, it just seemd that Civ3 wasn't covered as well as I would have liked. I'll admit that after seeing the graphics I was a bit disappointed. The units looked like new civ2 sprites. I hope they appear better in the final graphic/game engine. The world map seemed somewhat lacklustre also, but still I'm going on screenshots of an incomplete product. The current town graphics look quite impressive, as do the Diplomatic screens.
Apart from all the graphics though, the trade and diplomacy features of the upcoming Civ3 sound far more advanced than any of the games E3 rivals in the strategy gaming reviews. I'm glad some of the E3 games reporters saw fit to mention the areas in which Civ3 will leave it's competitors for dead.
Anyways...just a ramblin opinion...