Civ III Engine Proposal

[Az]

for me even CTP was too full of grafics . thew only grafics part I liked was the trade routs .

more grafics will kill the Chess feeling if you know what I mean .

[L o k i]

Ok, this is the image I am getting from you people.

You guys seem to just want to sit in your throne and tell everyone in your civilization what to do. That isn't civilization. Think harder now!

The reason why I am suggesting they 'take' the BW Engine from Peter, and then build around it.

So they have 2? years to work on diplomacy, units, trade, and whatever! The Graphics engine is already built! So they are already half way finished!

This is what I'm trying to tell you. Grab a brilliant Engine, and put Civ on top of it.

Then, they can use all their energy into the diplomacy, trade, etc. Instead of into the graphics, coz, well, most of its done!

Listen, all I'm saying is. I don't want to feel like I am playing on my computer, and thats what I get when I play Civ1 and 2. I want to feel like I am one of the people in my civilization, and actualy feel like I have real power, etc. At the moment, the only way now, to express that type of energy and whatever, is through this Graphics Engine. And then VR.

I don't want to sit in some chair, telling people what to do, for 6000 years.

(The game will be out in 23rd September)

[yin26]

And what I (and others) are saying is that we want Civ to stay true to its roots more or less. This means NO 3D graphics.

HOWEVER, another game with Civ's depth AND a BW world would be very interesting. You can sort of get this VR feeling with Everquest and Ultima Online, but nobody has tried something like that from a Civ perspective. If done properly, it could be a blast.

But I don't want Civ3 to be that kind of game. A vastly improved Civ2 in terms of diplomatic options, interface, 2D graphics, sound, etc. is what I'm after. And there's more than enough stuff in The List to make a cool game.

[Stuff2]

Actually I'm not a fan of graphics (My computer is simply too slow and I don't afford bying a new one). What I would like is more possible responses to events. Imagine this: an majer earthquake destroys one of your cities. Instead of just getting a message that it has happened you get a message about it with possible responses to do like "Rebuild whole city for xxx gold", "Evacuate", "Let them take care of themselves", "Give aid (food and shelter)" and so on. When a neighbur country crosses your borders u'll be notified and given choises on how to react. Like "Prepare Ambush", "Warn them", "Kill them" and so on.

[Malignantx]

It seems most of you don't want great graphics, just great gameplay? I feel the same way as Loki, playing civ is like playing a chess game not controlling a civilization. Isn't civilization suppose to simulate a real civilization and the interactions between them? What is the perspective of real leaders in the world? The same (almost) as in B&W.. although real leaders can't zoom in and out but you get what im saying. The 3d graphics would make me feel IMO like im actually building an empire instead of simply moving chess pieces around. Maybe you guys are satisfied with mediocre graphics and great gameplay, but i want great grahpics and great gameplay.

And maybe CivIII isn't ready for these graphics.. and so it seems most of your budgets, but i hope by the time CivIV comes around they do switch to a 3d graphics engine like B&W and you guys have upgraded your computers by then. =)
[This message has been edited by Malignantx (edited May 17, 2000).]

[MidKnight Lament]

If there's one thing that would get me to upgrade it would be Civ3, but I'd prefer not to. And it doesn't need great graphics, it just needs to be simple, clear, and have atmosphere. As long as it can do that without top-of-the-line graphics, then I say keep it simple.

- MKL

[yin26]

This has nothing to do with my budget. But thanks for the concern. I routinely buy a new top-of-the-line system every 2 years (and upgrade in between if I have to).

It has to do with the kind of game I want Civ3 to be. And I don't want it to be a 3D game. And this VR idea of seeing opposing leaders at a coffee shop while you stop together and discuss philosophy has never been a part of the game. It has been the illusion of the game made possible by great gameplay.

Keep it that way.

There are at least 50 3D games to choose from if I want that experience. But I don't.

[L o k i]

True to its roots! Exactly!

You all know what made Civ a great game, well, I don't get that feeling from tiles anymore, sorry! I am trying very hard to bring that addictive feeling back into life with Civ!

Only 3D is going to accomplish that now!

[L o k i]

I just remembered another reason why I am trying to argue this point, and that is because Firaxis have said time and time again, they are bringing Civ3 up to standards 'graphicaly'. Which is 3D. No matter which way you look at it.

I am trying to support the idea of BW's 3D Engine. Because of how powerful it is. And how addictive it will make the game again.

And Malignantx, obviously knows, that you CAN have both great gameplay and graphics. Don't let graphics make you think you can't have great gameplay, thats just pathetic.

[Grier]

IMO, if done well, a 3D g-engine for civ3 might be nice, but it certainly isnt on the top of my list. I would hate to happen to civ what happened to Populous when Pop3 came out. The most important aspects of the graphics are that they are functional.

[yin26]

Nobody is arguing (I don't think) that great graphics and great gameplay are antithetical. But there's simply no getting around the fact that a 3D Civ3 (using a BW engine) would NECESSARILY be a radically different game in terms of gameplay and feel. This is obvious.

What I'm saying is, in the case of Civ3, I don't want graphics to determine how the game is going to be radically different. If you can explain a BW engine Civ3 that has all the complexity (and simplicity) of the Civ tradition, I'm sure lots of people would be interested in hearing.

The closest thing yet is likely to be Warcraft 3...but that game is a far cry from Civ's use of world history. WC3 will be fun in its own right, no doubt, and perhaps revolutionary, but for now I don't think that a sweep of history game can be done well in 3D.

And aren't you sick of 3D games? It's been beaten to death. There will ALWAYS be room for great 2D games simply because you can do things with them that no 3D game can offer.

However, in the off-chance that Firaxis is reading this, I would like to support the new company line that graphics will be given a lot more attention. This is obviously awesome to hear...but 3D on Civ3 is clearly not the way to go.

[Asher]

Loki: I believe what you're looking for is what Warcraft III has (had?) planned...

But as stated before, B&W is a real time game, and I'm pretty sure Civ3 will be turn-based. Also...being able to see such detail in a game can wreak havoc on scale...

Imperium Galactica 2 had a cross between the two scales. There was a Galactic screen where you manuevered fleets around and a 'battle' screen. If ships were fighting, it'd zoom in and let you control ships in detail in the battle. The same thing with Tanks for ground invasions. You could also move the camera 360 degress in all directions and zoom in and out and such.

While the idea does sound cool, the novelty wears off pretty quickly and you begin to adjust to the "nice" visual effects and want a straight forward method of manuevering units tactically and move back to the strategy aspect.

[L o k i]

WARCRAFT 3? IMPERIUM GALACTICA 2!?

ARGH!! You guys are fustrating me!

Those two games are ancient compared to Black and White, I've seen WC3 in action, its engine is terrible, and Imperium Galactica 2's engine is even more terrible!

I am trying soo hard to explain myself, but I'm failing! doh!

I just hope to god, someone from Firaxis is reading and has seen/played a bit of Black and White! I want people who have played it to help back me up! Someone!

The reason, why 3D is so important and popular, is because its the only thing that will immerse the player more. 3D cannot be done to death, simply because its too important, its still in its very early stages of technology, but in a few years, 5-10, it will be extremely realistic.

Yin, I'll be very blunt and I know you are going to disagree with me on this, but I personaly, and seriously am getting the impression you are supporting the wrong type of game, you should be supporting an advanced chess type game instead. Civilization is a hell of a lot more than chess. Like people before have said, civilization requires atmosphere, the more, the better.

I am *very* worried, that Civilization will die in the background amongst all the other games out there that will stand out infront, because they have kept up with technology.

Civilization is a very important game to the gaming industry, it is the only game with the name that needs to be on top, in front, because the majority of the people, want to actualy put on their VR headset, and sit in some golden throne. And not only that, but walk out and walk through their kingdom whenever they please. Walk into battles, and whatever.

2D will not accomplish this. I and I am very sure most other people would want to see Civilization keep up with time so that we can actualy feel like we are controlling a real civilization. If the step isn't made with Civ3, it may lose the people's interest and we may never reach that goal in the future.

I don't support 2D anymore. 2D has had its time, and IT has been done to death.

[yin26]

I understand what you are saying, but to say that 2D is dead is to oversimpify the matter.

Let me ask you: Do you still play Chess? I love chess and other board games. Poker is one of the best games in the world. Now when Battle Chess came out with pieces that fight each other, etc., I thought "Cool! Let's buy that!"

You know what? It was lame. Destroyed the game.

And let me be blunt, too: Like it or not, Civ3 is not going to be in 3D. It just isn't. I guess this means you won't buy Civ3, and that's fine. However, like a great game of chess, the underlying game of Civ3 itself will be a great thing to visit again with improved 2D graphics, gameplay etc.

Am I saying Civ and Chess are on the same level? Well, personally I think Chess is a FAR more subtle game, but Civ gives you more options, so in a way it's more complex.

And let me say again, if you can sketch for me how all that makes Civ great can be put into a BW engine, let's hear it. I don't think 3D and our systems are there yet. A much more watered down 3D Civ is possible, and perhaps quite fun.

But that ain't Civ. You want a new game entirely. I'll play it when it comes out one day. So, trust me when I say I share your enthusiasm for such a day, but it's a bit off yet and certainly not in store for Civ3.

[L o k i]

I'm not asking for that VR stuff yet! I'm just supporting Civ for the future!

Who said Civ3 won't be in 3D? All I remember hearing is that Civ3 will be brought up to standards graphicaly, and that is from a graphic artists point of view, 3D!

By the time Civ3 comes out, and IF it's in 2D, it will look crap. absolute crap, compared to other games, most people just won't want to buy it. They'll be buying Metal Gear Solid 3 or some other game, supporting real-time rendering, etc.

I think I speak for the most, and that is that people don't want to see Civilization as a bad game, I want to see it on top. I want to see it on the top 10 list of best games of all time, again! That isn't going to happen with just good AI. Not anymore.


I am so sure, that the idea of making the player part of the people in your civilization, interacting with them and everything around you, is so important and immersive, that I am studying programming at the moment. I feel, that this is one thing I must accomplish, a game like this, just must be done, it's just one of those things that has to be done.