c181# CHARACTERS / GRAPHICS

[MarkG]

181# CHARACTERS / GRAPHICS
2 articles, 1 subject: civ3...

by Argentinot and TINOMan

[To_Serve_Man]

Huh?


Isnt ULTIMATE MODS: MAKING GAMES OBSOLETE #180?

[Mech Assassin]

Yes, Ultimate mods is #180 and this is #181...

Anyways, yes, leader characters would be nice... Maybe you should be allowed to give the generals a control of some operation and you'd only define the goals, that general would try to achieve. Same with turning city to auto-build with governor and some issues at the country to auto-run with ministers...

[Locutus]

Argentinot,
You're not the first to have this idea, check out the Clash of Civilizations website and forum, they plan on implementing a similar system.

[RGE]

I don't know about special characters in a strategic game. I'd have trouble enough keeping track of all the cities, so I wouldn't want to have to check up on each units generals loyalty too. There are diplomats who can bribe units, and in Alpha Centauri there's an option to give units a special ability that makes them twice as expensive to convert. I think this is a good enough simulation of disloyalty within an army.

As for graphics, I'd have to say that playing a black and white game isn't all that fun. I like to see graphics that enhance the mood of the game. They don't need to be fancy and push the limits of technology, but they have to have the right artistic quality. And a lot of Civ II units don't look that good in my eyes. But I still thought the game was worth playing a few times, because graphics just isn't as important as gameplay. For extended play though, better graphics might've been essential. It's not much fun entering the industrial age and get all those ugly red brick buildings all over your glorious civilization.

[Laszlo]

I think that some sort of labeling option should be allowed for units. It could be useful for instance, to have all your NONE units bearing a special marker (only to you, the owner - how's someone else to know how you support your armies?) to denote their special status. then you could remember to protect them more, or not waste an extra NONE settler on a city.

On the graphics issue though, I agree with RGE. The Civ 2 graphics, especially all the gray on the windows looks a bit dated. You need more land and city uniqueness, maybe even the damaged units will look different, or a staggered advance of city types so there can be big white shining cities, smaller brick-walled cities, then the real bqackcountry uses log cabins and stone walls for their towns.

But, as always, gameplay should come before graphics. And the graphics screenshots on civ3.com looked pretty spiffy - let's hope the gameplay is still better.

[tniem]

I thought that TINOman contradicted himself in his article. He tells Firaxis not to worry about the graphics - they are not what makes a game great.

Heck, I agree with this. Balance, AI, and gameplay make a game fun which is all that matters to me in most cases.

But the problem with his statement is that graphics are very important. Yes may be not to me or not to him, but they were to his friends. Remember he points out that they said "Civ 2 sucks!" or whatever simply because the graphics look bad.

I have similar friends. A couple of which actually started interested in Civ III but soon grew uninterested in the game due to the early screen shots. These people will never play the game unless one of us physically forces them to simply due to the graphics. They expect games to look real before they give them a try.

So what does this mean?

Graphics are important. Without them, the series may stay great but there will not be new gamers and so the series will ultimately die. Civ III will be it if the game does not sell well and it will not sell well without decent graphics. I really think that TINOMan missed the mark on this column.

[Todd Hawks]

tniem,

You have some point there, but if you think about it, then you will get Civ3 with nice graphics and maybe not so good gameplay.
Then there will be a lot people buying the game.
Then Civ4 will be even better graphics and worse gameplay.
.....

And at the end you do have a lot of players and Civ won't "die", but it won't be the Civ that I (and you) liked to play.


I hope that we'll get decent graphics AND good gameplay. But if I had do take only one.....

Todd

[Mech Assassin]

The graphics matter for the masses. Not for retro gamers or hardcore strategists (strategy games (both, TB and RT) commonly give away in graphics). I still play UFO 1: Enemy Unknown, ivilization, Master of Orion, Master of Magic and such. The only thing that's outdated is graphics. Everything else is good. And I'd rather play those games than todays mass-market games with super graphics, but poor gameplay. Heck, if I want to see only good graphics, I go to see a movie. It's gameplay that makes a game. It's graphics, that makes the game to sell at mass-markets... Stupid, but true. I buy games for the game, not graphics, but not many seem to agree with me.

[Father Beast]

About those governors...

MOO2 had governors and admirals you could hire (drawing heavily from MOM) and get various bonuses. But I would hate for civ3 to turn into that.
If I'm going to have a governor, I think I should trade off the production or whatever bonuses by letting him run the city. If I don't like the way he's running the city, I can fire him and try to find someone else, or just manage the city myself without the bonuses.
I think that would lend a sense of balance to the governors thing.

Mind you, I'm fairly sure it's too late for this sort of innovation.

But finding and firing various mayors could become a game in itself

[dadacp]

I agree completely about the graphics. Gameplay is much more important than graphics. Nowadays the game reviews rate the games to a large extent by the graphics and sound, and the game companies put out games with great graphics and sound, but not much else. When I hear that a strategy game has excellent graphics and sound, I get suspicious that maybe it doesn't have much depth.

[dadacp]

I agree completely about the graphics. Gameplay is much more important than graphics. Nowadays the game reviews rate the games to a large extent by the graphics and sound, and the game companies put out games with great graphics and sound, but not much else. When I hear that a strategy game has excellent graphics and sound, I get suspicious that maybe it doesn't have much depth.

[Scrooge]

I would like to comment on the "leaders" part.
I've seen a lot of discussions on the topic, since the Firaxis is thinking on implementing this feature.
----------
The concept of leaders is great fun, great fun indeed, ufff... The leaders could represent wonders of human kind. Almost same rules apply as for static wonders.

Leaders should not be historical (well, ok they may have some preset names which you could change in generic games, after all Newton was Newton, but just as well his name could be Oldton, then we'd have Oldton's Laws, you should get to name 'em leaders). Fixed names for scenarios perhaps.

This is how it could go:
> type of leader = example - prerequisite or trigger (to be worked out) - effect example

Military leaders would be of the most common kind and would stack with armies boosting some stat of your choice except movement - can't imagine a legion of Marathon runners (1-5 leaders max at any one time; 1 for every 10 cities)

> military leaders = GENERALS, COMMANDERS (like Patton, Nelson) - # of barracks, later adequate army, navy rating or aircraft rating (or just no. of units) - boost a stat

Civic leaders - (0-2 leaders max of the kind at any one time; you have to deserve them, 1 per 25 cities)

> scientific leaders = RESEARCHERS (like Newton, Einstein) - # of research facilities / scientists in city / "test tube" output - boost research, increase chance of early discovery
> economic = TYCOONS (like Rockefeller, help me) - # of economic facilities / bankers in city / "coin" output - boost coin output of one city further
> industrial = MOGULS ENGINEERS (like Stevenson, Ford) - # of industrial facilities / engineers in city / "shield" output - boost shield output of one city further
> cultural = ARTISTS (like Da Vinci, Elvis) - # of happy people / culture output - boost happiness or culture further of a city, quench revolts or civil disorder for 1trn, prevent migration, whatever you choose from available options

The exact prerequisites for the leader to "be born" have to be play-tested. To get the max 2 leaders of the same kind you have to be a nation strong in the corresponding field. Also, when a trigger is complete, for a couple of trns, there must be some growing chance (like n+10% per trn chance) for a leader to be born (so they don't spring up on automatic the next trn after I jiggle with the city's output).

Now when a leader "is born", you get a small "A Leader Is Born" window with Leader Name (preset but editable) and 2-3 leader stats (radio buttons), like what he does.
Military leaders this can be a >type of army: o land o sea o air (choices),
and what he does >boost: o attack rating o defense rating o morale.
Later perhaps even >favorite unit pull-down (like armour, so he could be your fav gen. Batton).

Civilian leaders exactly as above only sphere of influence is city of your choice and benefits civilian. This way you can send an engineer leader to a small undeveloped city to boost it's production and develop a factory faster; or you could send an artist to an unhappy city if you don't want to convert the locals into entertainers; or send an artist on a tour abroad for 5 trns to rise your standing with that nation. Feel free to explore the possibilities. Just close your eyes.

You can influence the leader's abilities because it's your education system that "breeds them". So you have to have schools, academies and univs or maybe a !NEW! war academy or naval school. Leaders have a random 10-25 turns finite lifespan (ancients have less) and can be killed by the enemy or taken over (bribe) or even if you're really bad, defect to the - hopefully better - neighboring nation. Leaders are like land units, that you can move from city to city freely and board transports. (the great naval commander Yammamoto got shot down in a transport plane)

If you really want to go crazy into leaders, add Great Leaders. These could represent historical figures, confirm the general leader rules as above, but have larger benefits, be way more "expensive" (prereqs) and be born only once per game and/or connect to advancements. Just like the new rules on wonders.

It's really that simple. Again most of the rules are already in place. Pushing my luck further, as I've mentioned in
#CivIII - Open-ended App thread the leaders' files could be plug-ins also. Full thread on leaders click here

Aha, I would leave out religious leaders, for this can be a sensitive issue and for political correctness. As I've said in a different thread about trading leaders, tell me, which nation would "build" Jesus (and perhaps send him on a tour)?

THX for your attention. Sorry for spelling.

[tniem]

Originally posted by Todd Hawks
tniem,

You have some point there, but if you think about it, then you will get Civ3 with nice graphics and maybe not so good gameplay.
Then there will be a lot people buying the game.
Then Civ4 will be even better graphics and worse gameplay.

OK, I understand the concern of better graphics decreasing game play. I have grown up with it. The best games I played came back when you had to squint to even decipher what you were looking at. As graphics have improved, many developers have let graphics do their work for them and decreased game play.

But this is not always the case.

Black and White was not revolutionary because of the graphics (Sacrifice killed them and was still a good game) but because the AI was going to have an effect on the world. Blizzard games are highly addictive not because of their look but instead because the games are highly balanced and fun. The Sims was one of the best games in terms of gameplay in a long time. Games like Unreal, Max Payne, and Tribes 2 also boast great perspective graphics and are still a blast to play.

So all I am saying is game play is important. Graphics are important. Without either you hurt a game. Without decent graphics you lose prospective buyers and the game doesn't work with the interface. Meanwhile, without game play a game is just plain bad.

And all of the above games have incorporated cutting edge graphics and a great fun gameplay. So Firaxis should and I believe in a lot of cases has tried to do both.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Anyway, graphics are getting better in last few months. (from the earliest screenshots).

Graphics are important unfortunatley, since they capture the imagination of newbies first, before they realise what potential is on their hard-drive.

It takes a while to learn how to play games like Civ. it is not just run and shoot. (which can be fun as well )