Civ III Engine Proposal

[The Joker]

I am not sure what I think now.

I can see why Loki wants a beautiful 3D Civ3, but I also agree with Yin and the others that in my mind I can not at all have it work with a civ game.

I think that I would like a BW engine for Civ, if it can be done without wrecking the civ feel.

But There are some problems:

It seems like that in BW you can actually zoom down to see every little tree and every little house. But I don't want that for Civ3! I don't want to be able to see every one of the 5 million houses in my capital. That would be sick! And I don't want to be able to talk to every one of my 160 million people. Or manage every on of my 5000 airplanes and 10000 tanks in a war. That would be ridiculous.

I would, however, like to have the people have a mind of it's own, so that they reflect and interact to the things that I do. But I don't need stunning graphics to do that.

I know that we all sound very conservative regarding Civ3. I myself don't think of myself as a conservative Civ3 fan. I would like a total remake of the game engine. But I am not sure if it should include total 3D. Especcially the 3D of BW, which seems more microlike, in stead of the macro feel of Civ games. A more down to earth 3D engine in Civ3 could work, but at the same time I think that 3D becomes ugly if it isn't done well.

Ohh, I don't know anymore! I just hope that Firaxis does whatever works best for the game.

Loki:
You said that BW would be out by september 23rd. But it sounds like you have already played it. How does this combine?

Good luck with your programming BTW. I am looking forward to seing your first game. If you can accomplish your goals it will definately be worth buying!

[Asher]

When a game becomes 3D, it becomes eyecandy. Sure, I like 3D...but only where it's appropriate. Quake 3 is 3D, as it should be. Civilization III will be a game about building an empire in a turn-based environment. I fail to see why vastly increasing the system requirements so one can watch the same units from many angles is worth the effort. In the end, it only becomes distracting. You want to quickly deploy units, you end up waiting for your computer to display some gorgeous, but useless, graphics of intense detail.

I would still get Civ3 if it had Civ2's graphics, but way better AI. I'd play the game for the strategic elements, graphics takes a back seat. If it does become 3D like B&W, IG2, Warcraft 3, etc, etc...then I do hope it has an option for a simplistic isometric view that I enjoy so much. The fad of having it in 3D wears off much too quickly for it to be viable.

[OrangeSfwr]

That last post reminded me of my first computer, a Tandy of some sort, back in 1987. It came with a game called "Battlechess" where you could switch between a 2D mode (simple chess pieces) and a 3D view (Units that came alive and fought the other to the death). ::Memories::

Ok, my obvious point is to have a way to switch between a Civ 2 "Chess board" with 2D units and flat terrain, and a more graphically intense game with 3D units, better City and terrain views, etc...

Both should be very simple to use and operate, and the 3D version should not consist of movies for every battle that takes place. However, you always have the option if you're not in the mood for a long, graphic game with eyecandy.

3D may be better for games on Earth and Scenarios such as WWII. 2D if you're simply playing on a new world. Although you could switch between them at any time.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[This message has been edited by OrangeSfwr (edited May 18, 2000).]

[L o k i]

I am failing to understand why most of you don't want to be immersed into the game?

Please explain that. Don't you want to see what your civilization, actualy looks like? and how big, it actualy looks.

I've got a suggestion. Play Indiana Jones, Infernal Machine, go to the island level, where the tiki's are, etc. While you're standing on the beach, try to imagine, having, about, 30? other people on the island with you. And imagine, telling the people to build you a tribe hut here on this beach. Some will go out and get the wood, and others will go hunting for food.

Then go swimming in the ocean, go to the area where there is a wrecked Japanese Ship, imagine that ship was one of yours, or one of your enemies ships that you destroyed, in real time.

I'm not asking for a house for every person, We really need to feel like we are in control of the situation. If I am controlling situations from in the sky and looking down on crappy graphics (which is actualy "the world you are playing in") then you aren't getting the *correct* feel of how a civilization should be growing.

Okay, It would have to be RTS, in order for it to look right.

BUT...I think, a suggestion is simple, first...in history, a lot of battles were known to happen, so they could get ready for the battle, other battles were out of the blue, and thats where you are gonna have to use your strategic skills with defences, etc. but they don't have to happen instantly, you could have lookout points, which can warn you of some men coming over the horizon. The enviroment is much much larger, than things like warcraft, etc. where its just too difficult to get ready for incoming battles.

You might be on some large tropical island, and one day decide to walk up a high hill, and look over your civilization, you notice a large clearing which leads towards your tribe, you could think, oh, well I better put a large wall there to stop any intruders, and maybe two guardsmen. Then you see some of your people, go off into the woods, come back with some wood, and back to the clearing and start building the wall out of bamboo or something.

So you can start doing all the things that civilizations used to do a long time ago.

I know its starting to sound like a really big thing to accomplish, but it's just one of those things that must be done. The first person to do it, will shake the gaming industry, twice!

It's one step down from the ultimate gaming experience!

And it can be done now! This sort of thing couldn't have been done 3-4 yrs ago!

[Asher]

The scale would have to be big enough to encompass the world. Having it 3D would be more of a pain than a useful feature. As I said before, I would like it *IF* it was an option that could be turned on and off. It'd be quite annoying to move units around...but to do so you'd need to move the camera to see the screen properly. Not to mention, you'd need quite the computer to run it properly...

[MidKnight Lament]

You're right - It would be cool. But it's just not going to happen.

Take a breath. Remember that this is Civ. It's not VR. It's not RTS. If you can make a game like that then I'll pay you lots of money to play it. Until then, it'd be easier if you found your own island and started telling the natives to build you a hut.

- MKL
[This message has been edited by MidKnight Lament (edited May 19, 2000).]

[L o k i]

I'm not going to talk to anyone who isn't going to be positive about this because the people with their negative ideas just aren't justifying themselves enough to prove to me that what I think Civ should be like is wrong.

okay, here's a screenshot from within Indy (its 3D).
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~knowles/shot.gif

Imagine, being the Aztecs, and living in valleys, surrounded by snakes, and other animals and birds flying in the sky.

And imagine telling your people to build that big building in the screenshot. and you can only build it if you have the resources.

All of the land you see in the background is visable, and you can journey there if you wish to. You can say, right, we need a second city coz this city is getting too big, so you tell quater of your people to pack up and head on over those hills and mountains. (And you can go with them). To find a good spot for another city.

Glonk, I've said before, the world in BW's Engine is 3 times as large as earths, judging by the scale of the people in the game. (and they aren't dots )

[yin26]

Loki,

I guess I'll try this one more time, but I'm not sure we are understanding each other anymore on this topic.

What you are describing will ONE DAY be quite an experience! But it won't happen for Civ3 or any other game to the depth you describe for a long, long time. Yes, it's going to happen in one form or another, and I'll be gladly buying the equipment and slapping down my money when it happens.

But...

I'll also be buying great 2D games like Civs 10, 20, 30 years from now simply because sometimes I like the way that kind of game plays. And I'm sure many people feel the same way. Many times I simply DON'T want to be immersed in a game completely. Then it becomes almost like work, if you get my meaning. Do I really want to ride the raft over to the next island and catch some fish along the way to keep from starving?

But if you look at my computer, you'll see some good 3D stuff (like Ultima9) as well as some GREAT 2D TBS stuff (like Heroes of Might and Magic: Shadow of Death). You'll also find chess.

So the point isn't that one kind of game MUST rule the future. That's silly. There will always be room for many styles of games to be immensely popular whether they are 2D, 3D or god knows what else. GO is one of the most played games in the world, and it's nothing more than black and white (the irony) stones on a grid marked in some wood. Consider that.

I share your overall enthusiasm, however, for the game you describe, but we might both be very old men before it's absolutely the "real" experience you seem to want it to be. And it certainly isn't possible with even the best computer any of us can buy. Perhaps the team at IBM could give it a whirl, but...

For now, I'm just looking forward to an awesome Civ3. In 2D.

[Urban Ranger]

3D has its uses, but perhaps not for Civ3. Consider the Civ map. It spans the entire globe. Any sort of 3D effects would be a total waste. Okay, so you can zoom in. However, the novelty of looking at fratal mountains and birds flying in the wind wears out after a while.

You don't need 3D graphics to immerse yourself in a game. What you need is atmosphere. Consider one of the best games of all time: UFO: Enemies Unknown (XCOM: UFO Defense for you Americans ). Anybody who have ever played the game got totally sucked into it. Yet the game has no 3D graphics. It doesn't even have animation -- okay, maybe extremely crude animation. Same goes with Civ. Civ doesn't even have animation at all.

On the other hand, there were a large number of Myst clones with stunning graphics. However they had no gameplay at all.

Another point is computing power. You can't ask everybody to upgrade his computer just to play a game. So by requiring heavy duty hardware you limit your own market size.

[Malignantx]

Bah, loki is gone beyond what i thought a 3d version of civIII should be. I don't want so much detail that i wouldnt know the difference between playing civiii and ruling a real empire. It would be too time consuming. I mean look, civ games today have enough in it to take forever for one turn to go by, especially near the end. If you ever have cheats on and use show the whole map then prepare to wait a while.

What i was thinking was that the game would have the same amount of detail, same sized units everything.. except a 3d world. Some what like populous 3 ? the latest one. I dont want civIII to become a chore. Also weather patterns and day and night would be a nice touch. the graphics are to compliment the gameplay, not interfere with it or degrade it. later..

[L o k i]

I give up, sigh.

[Eurhetemec]

Loki, you know precisely nothing about 3D graphics. The human eye can only distinguish 15 FPS? Excuse me, are you insane? The human eye can distingiush 50, not 15 frames a second with EASE. Nothing looks "smooth" unless it is at least 25 FPS, or on a precise computer monitor, more like 40 FPS.

Furthermore, that engine is way too precise to be used for Civ's far out view. I want Civ III to have 3D graphics, and I'd like you to be able to zoom in pretty close, but the B&W engine is TOO precise and not nearly as quick as it's designers claim it to be.

15 frames a second is PAINFULLY jerky. Just get out whatever version of Quake you own and do some benchmarking on it. You'll see that below 25 FPS the game is just annoying.

Does Civ III need 3D graphics to be an economic success? Yes. Does it need silly-ly precise 3D graphics from a totally different game engine? No. If anything, a Voxel-based engine would be superior to the polygon-based ones used in B&W. The only reason to use poly engines is that so many people have 3D graphics cards. As for people claiming "I don't have a 400MHz processor and Voodoo2+ graphics card, I won't be able to play!" well, too bad. This is PC gaming. Things move on. You need to upgrade to lay recent games. Period. You'll still have AC, CivII and other games, but if CivIII needs a decent processor and so on to play, well, there you go. You need an expensive car to compete in most races.



------------------
"You're standing on my neck."

[yin26]

You guys, there's no need for us to attack Loki. I think his vision for a future game is interesting, and I'm glad he shared his idea for the game. Perhaps he'll be one of the guys who helps put such a game together.

But let's respect each other's ideas.

[Urban Ranger]

quote: Originally posted by Private Viper on May 19, 2000 12:03 As for people claiming "I don't have a 400MHz processor and Voodoo2+ graphics card, I won't be able to play!" well, too bad. This is PC gaming. Things move on. You need to upgrade to lay recent games. Period. You'll still have AC, CivII and other games, but if CivIII needs a decent processor and so on to play, well, there you go. You need an expensive car to compete in most races.

I must take issue with this viewpoint.

As you have said so well, this is PC gaming, not PC snazzy geewhiz 3D realtime graphics.

Yes, things do move on, but somehow there aren't any classic games in the recent years, not in the sense of Civ or UFO: Enemies Unknown. There is simply no reason that games must have gratuitous graphics to succeed. There are many games with graphics that simply get in the way of playing. For example, in Risk II, whenever there is a battle the game zooms in and shows a bunch of soldiers shooting at each other. This was fun for the first couple of times you watch, then you find out it slows down the game too much. Luckily, this feature can be disabled. But why bother putting it in in the first place?

If this is a race, then the car is the gameplay. Graphics are just decorations outside.
[This message has been edited by Urban Ranger (edited May 19, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Urban Ranger (edited May 19, 2000).]

[Par4]

I think Firaxis will do a fine job with the engine and I don't program graphics so I won't comment much. BW is definately a much different game than civ and its engine, IMHO, will not work at all. I hate to say this but this is one issue I think maybe we should let Firaxis do this on their own without much help.

P.S. Viper, I've been visiting CNCNZ since it was TSNNZ, great site, didn't you have to go to the military? Are you out?
RA2 Yay!

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse