The graphics: summarized opinions

[Ralf]

A graphic score-list from 1 (really bad) to 5 (excellent). Add your own values:

- Advisor-screens: 5
- Units: 4+
- City on map: 4+
- City-view: 5
- Basic terrain-types: 3-
- Tile-improvements: 2

The fuzzy looking forrest-variant, unproportional mountains and yellow-green ocean/rivers drags it down. The other terrain-tiles looks "3" to me (OK, but could be better). The hills looks good though. Roads/rivers over those pointy mountains looks ridicules. I dont like the warm-yellow colour-tone. Bright colours yes, but a more neutral colour-tone, please. Irrigations look like marshes (grade 1-, sorry). If they where basic marshes I would give it a "4".

[TechWins]

- Advisor-screens: 4
- Units: 4-
- Basic terrain-types: 2+
- Tile-improvements: 2-
- City View: 4+

Overall, this is not an average, the graphics are about 3. A little bit above average. I don't really think they're going to revolutionize Civ's genre like Firaxis has stated. I do believe that will be considered fairly good for it's genre.

[Adagio]

- Advisor-screens: 5
- Units: 4
- City on map: 4 +
- Basic terrain-types: 3
- Tile-improvements: 3
- City View: 5
- Leaders: 4 +


Leaders: Abraham Lincoln, etc...

[Lord_Davinator]

- Advisor-screens: 5
- Units: 5
- City on map: 3
- Basic terrain-types: 2
- Tile-improvements: 1
- City View: 4
- Leaders: 5

[Ralf]

Land-terrain should raise above oceans somewhat. Important!
Contradiction made a nice attempt in his Check this one out thread.

[Fidel]

- Advisor-screens: 5 (now, this is an easy part)
- Units: 2
- City on map: 3
- Basic terrain-types: 2
- Tile-improvements: 1

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Ralf
Land-terrain should raise above oceans somewhat. Important!
Contradiction made a nice attempt in his Check this one out thread.

I like that raise above oceans, but I think it would look great if both raised and non-raised is in the game, this makes a certain difference in the game. Like the thing about (for example) trees are not the same all over the world

[Solver]

I sometimes care more for good videos rather than unit, etc. pictures, because videos make the impression. When I'll start Civ 3 for the first time, the first thing I'll see will be the starting video, and if it is absolutely bad, than the first thoughts won't be good either.
Strategy games don't have the best graphics, at least they never did. Even though, Age of Mythology is now trying to be a strategy game with some excellent graphics (really looks like that).

[Swissy]

- Advisor-screens: 5
- Units: 4
- City on map: 2 *
- Basic terrain-types: 0 *
- Tile-improvements: 1*

*It seems that Firaxis thinks the game map graphics is one area they can go cheap on. The Advisor screens/leaders/Units looks very well done. The map looks cheap compared to the other graphics in the game. Not so much that it is bad, but not upto the standards of the other game graphics.

[ContradictioN]

AS: 5
Units: 4
City on Map: 5
Terrain: 3
TI: 3

I'm quite positive by it, but this is looking at it from an artists point of view. There are things that artists know that would really surprise non-artists about how the brain see's.

But, the terrain has naturaly not pleased most of the people here, but the reason I have given it a 3, is because it does have its good sides, but the bad sides equal its good.

[Akron]

Sorry, the map graphics are horrible. Maybe 6 years ago they may have been ok, but compared to most games on the market today they look plain ugly. I don't understand why they are so dull and soggy. Looks like someone took a piss on them. I like civ 2's grapics better. Also, the forests should join together, not be separate tiles. If the graphics can even resemble ctp's, i'll be very happy.

I really hope that sid can finally put together a game with decent graphics and music. For newcomers especially, those are two things that must be there first. As it stands now, though, the game looks cheap.

Maybe I'm making too big a deal out of this. The pictures may look sorta dirty now because of the jpeg format. But it really annoys me when people say stuff like this is good.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Ralf
Contradiction made a nice attempt in his Check this one out thread.

Unfortunately no image appear on my browser (not with Explorer 5.5 nor with Netscape 6). Is it removed now?

ContradictioN, can you tell me another place where to find it?

Thank you in advance.

[Adm.Naismith]

- Advisor-screens: 5
- Units: 4
- City on map: 3
- Basic terrain-types: 1
- Tile-improvements: 1
- City View: 4
- Leaders: 4

Overall a 3

I still pray any greek and egyptian god that Map graphic is still under development, but my hopes are almost as thin as probablity that Mr.Bill Gates gift me a billion dollars...

[BigRich]

Re: The graphics: summarized opinions

- Advisor-screens: 4
- Units: 4
- City on map: 3
- City-view: 5
- Basic terrain-types: 3
- Tile-improvements: 1

The overall map graphics aren't *too* bad, the detail is quite nice but the colour schemes are horrible. Unless these are industrial revolution type cities, which I would expect to be ugly (never liked the red brick Civ II cities either), a couple of dozen of those is going to be wearing on the eye. Maybe thats the Firaxis anti ICS strategy - make the cities so ugly that a checkerboard pattern of them would make most players cry
The tile improvements are hideous. Whoever said that the irrigation looks like swamps The roads are pretty bad as well.
Sure with a strategy game the graphics are going to take second place and I would far rather have a great game sans eye candy than great eye candy sans game. Even so....

Rich.

[ContradictioN]

Sorry about that adm, its back up now