*sniff*? What is rotten? Argh! The Screenshots!!

[XarXo]

Firaxis!! Three weeks from the site openning and the screenshots are the SAME!

By the way....

I'm very interested in know how many city types are,
I believe that there are 5 cultural types:

Native American, Classical, Bronze Age, European Medieval and Oriental.

And 2 extra types: Industrial and Modern.

But the problem is that some types are used by some civs, and another ones not, the city evolution could be customable for each civ? I propose the following basic types:

1.- Barracks,
2.- Grecorroman Classical,
3.- Oriental,
4.- Precolombian,
5.- Mesopotamia-Egypt (Monolitical Bronze Age),
6.- European Middle Age,
7.- Arabian Classical-Middle Age,
8.- Renaissance-Colonial,
9.- Industrial,
10.- Modern.

For example, Aztecs could be:

Barracks -> Precolombian -> Renaissance-Colonial -> Industrial Modern.

Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians:

Barracks -> Mesopotamia -> Arabian Classical - Middle Ages -> Industrial -> Modern.

Indians:

Barracks -> Mesopotamia -> Renaissance-Colonial -> Industrial -> Modern.

Greeks, Romans:

Barracks -> Grecorromans Classical -> Renaissance-Colonial -> Industrial -> Modern. (Italians/Romans and Greeks haven't truly "castles", more renaissance palaces!!)

Chinese, Japanese:

Barracks -> Oriental -> Industrail -> Modern. (China probably without Industrial, its development is really fast and modern)

Iroquois, Zulus:

Barracks -> Renaissance-Colonial -> Industrial (??) -> Modern (??)

Americans:

Renaissance-Colonial -> Industrial -> Modern (They haven't any castle! No castles and NO CLASSICAL TEMPLES!! Washington City Rome-copy Style isn't the basis of all american cities!!!)

French, Germans, Russians, English:

Barracks -> European Middle-Age -> Renaissance-Colonial -> Industrial -> Modern

I believe that this model is more realistic, not all the civs have the same architechture evolution!!!

Seeing your (OLD!!!) screenshots I think that you have the same idea, is correct?

[The diplomat]

What exactly are you complaining about?!? Are you saying you don't like the screenshots?

The screenshots at the official site are brand newcompared to the previews. You can know because if you look closely you will see that the placeholder stuff has been replaced with the final graphics! If you ask me, the graphics are a MEGA improvement over civ2, and the interface is awesome. Obviously, static screenshots don't convey the full picture. But I think that the graphics combined with the animations, will make civ3 look pretty nice! But that is just my opinion

[XarXo]

Originally posted by The diplomat
What exactly are you complaining about?!? Are you saying you don't like the screenshots?

Nonononooooooooo! I said that are THE SAME ONES than three weeks ago, when the ite opens. Civ III graphics are OK, the problem is that the screenshots ARE THE SAME!!! They updated a lot of things but them no. Only is this.

The true message is the 95% of the rest of the text.

[Provost Harrison]

Well I think that the screenshots look nice as they are, and Firaxis have already stated on many occasions that still screenshots do not do justice to the game which is very much animated...

[tishco]

the animation screeen saver wuz cool, and good sounds apart from the ship and the horse which galloped, stopped and galloped again.

[Urban Ranger]

I reckon most people will turn off the animations after half a dozen games or so. Too distracting

Do the animations help?

[Sabre2th]

I have no plans to turn the animations off in civ3. They are a part of the game. They add to the feel.

[Guildenstern]

I agree with xo, there is a need for more types of art for blgs. I read through your mesasge and I like your choice of styles. I hope Fireaxis is watching!

[Skanky Burns]

If the animations slow the game down, then they are gone, otherwise ill keep them

[Kurgan]

In test of time there were animations and I never turned them off, they added flavor to the game.