Civ III Engine Proposal

[Private Viper]

Loki, I see on your profile that you are a 3D artist. Well then, I ask you, you should have some clue what kind of programming knowledge, skill and time would be required to recreate the WHOLE WORLD in 3D. BW doesn't do that, it just gives you areas of it (huge areas, yes, but nothing like the world itself). Imagine zooming in and out, in and out, in and out in different corners of your empire for micro-management. The BW engine works for BW, but the genres are beyond comparison.

I'd also like to join the gang who would play civ3 if it's using the Civ1 engine with vastly upgraded gameplay, and I know there are quite a lot of you out there, let alone fans of the Civ2 engine. Of course, the graphics WILL be better than that, and hopefully changed for the better, but I pray, don't give me full 3D. I don't even like RTS games in total 3D, it becomes too cumbersome compared to a top-down view. And yes, I have tried quite a few.

I'd like to end with an equation: How many polygons would it take to recreate the world in full 3D. Now check your answer with the technology and speed of your processor and graphics card... I think you'll find the first total is quite a few times bigger than the second one...

just my .02

------------------
Viper
viper@cnc.net.nz
CNCNZ

[L o k i]

I'm going to make this my very last post.

I hope people read it thoroughly before they post their message. It's fustrating, having to keep repeating myself.

Eurhetemec, I'm going to ignore you, you sound stupid.

You DON'T NEED A 3DCARD TO RUN THE BLACK AND WHITE ENGINE, NOR DO YOU NEED A 400MHZ COMPUTER. A 200 works fine! The more polygons I have on display at any time , the slower my computer is going to run, depending on the graphics card, right? That's not entirely true, it's mostly about programming. Black and Whites engine is programmed to run as smooth as a babys arse every time, all the time. It never jerks.

Pirate Viper, I've considered what you've said before, it's obvious that you would have to alter the engine in order for it to work for civ3. I didn't feel I had to say this, because, well, its just obvious, sorry, I spose I should have mentioned it at the beginning, a lot of other people have been saying the same sort of thing.

I have never seen Civ as a type of game that fits well in chess type genres.
I've always seen it as a game that should be the best it can be.

Don't you think...you would get more of a 'thinking' game out of it, if you had a rule-less world? Much like the world we live in now. Don't you think you would get the correct type of game that civilization should be played at?

If I had a tiled game, that said, I can't move my tank there coz well, thats not programmed, then aren't I limited to what it really should be? So I'm not really playing Civilization, I'm playing Chess: Civilization.

I DON'T WANT TO PLAY CHESS! I WANT TO PLAY CIVILIZATION AS IT SHOULD BE!

I would have to consider soo many more things if the game had no rules! It would require, REALLY thinking about everything!

Civilization as it is now, is far too limited!

[Malignantx]

hahaha, so what you're really asking for is Sim Earth 2000? and how is civilization limited? graphicly? gameplay? i know its both, the graphics are behind the standards of games today.. and i dont care how badly you guys want to keep the same ****ty dont know what the hell that is, pixely crap graphics. The graphics suck.. i would think the grahpics rocked a few years ago though. but most of the time when you get far into the game the screen becomes so clustered its hard to know what units are where. Also the gameplay definitely needs a lot more depth.
[This message has been edited by Malignantx (edited May 20, 2000).]

[yin26]

Well I most certainly want better graphics in Civ3 along with a lot more options that force a player to think carefully. If this means 3D for the graphics, and if Firaxis has the ability to do it, great, I'll buy the game. On the other hand, if Firaxis does nothing more than simple cosmetic changes to Civ2 (please see my article "Civ 2.5?" posted on this site) then I'll probably just save my time for MOO3.

So I don't think there's much to argue about: We all want the game to be substantially better...just some of us have a different focus from others. Hey, variety is the spice of life.

I'll also be buying BW as soon as I hear the released version is at least half of what all the hype has been. Hopefully it will help set the stage for even better things to come.
[This message has been edited by yin26 (edited May 20, 2000).]

[Slax]

In my opinion, Civ is a strategy game, and strategy is best done from overhead, not from "in the field".

What you decribe is "live the life of a ruler", which might be fun for a minute, but then your ruler would eventually have to go to his 3d war room and look at a 2-d map to plan how to rule his land anyway.

Just make the gameplay immersive.

[L o k i]

Thanks Yin, you're seeing my veiws.

Slax, I disagree with you, simply because Hitler didn't hover thousands of ft above the land looking down from the sky and saying I want that unit there, a city there, etc etc.

Again, it's not 'correct'. It's Chess: Civilization.

It's not what Civilization should be. Because, as we all know, Civilization, isn't chess.

[L o k i]

Oh, another thing I should mention is that you don't have to be in all places at once or very quickly move everywhere.

Your military advisor can help you out there.

Maybe, you could have a map inside your castle, or whatever, and it is a map of what your civilization knows, and where all your units, cities, etc all are.

And you can say, well I think we should build a city here on the map.

And you can go outside and see that starting to happen.

It doesn't have to be real-time either, it can be a mix of RTS and TBS.

[Slax]

And when your ruler ends up spending all his time in his castle looking at a map to make his decisions what do you have? - 2D !

(perhaps the occasional 3d servant can bring me my tea?)

[Slax]

I'm sorry Loki, you're just so fired up about this!

The issue of graphics really comes down to one thing - what kind of CIV gamer is the player? Do they play a fast game with the goal of a quick win, or do they design their own history of the world in which they are immersed.

Personally, after one game I don't think I would want to zoom in on anything, but others might. Someday a game like this will be made, but it won't be CIV III.

[Asher]

Loki: I find it very hard to believe that B&W will run decently on a 200. Sure, it may run @ 5fps in 640x480 in 256 colors with 5 sprits on the screen...but that's not really running the game.

Take Quake 3, for example, the box says it can run on a 266. Yes, it can, but its nowhere near playable unless you've got a 350 or higher. And John Carmack has been donig 3D for far longer than most people, especially Peter Moleneaux (sp). You cannot just "design" a program to run smoothly can overcome hardware drawbacks...well, you can...but this involves cutting down graphical quality.

How do you know how smooth the engine is when you've never even played it? Are you relying on promises made by the game company? Of course they'll say it'll be very smooth and they designed it to do that. You expect them to say: "No, it'll be extremely choppy because you need a very high system to run it."?

[MidKnight Lament]

Loki - In the past you've had conflicting ideas to I've had, and I'm perfectly ok with that... but time and again you've also been pretty offensive about getting those ideas across. Visionary you may be (although personally I think you're over-shooting the mark), but you don't do your ideas any credit by attacking people all the time.

- MKL

[L o k i]

I'm just sick of getting replies with questions that I have already answered.

When I say the game will run smoothly on a P200, without a 3D card, then I mean it!

This is not one of your average games, or one of your new-tech games, its even more than that! Stop thinking in what you know already and start thinking differently, cause this is what the game is about!

It's power is more than you can beleive!

[Asher]

There is just no way a game with the kind of graphics I've seen in screenshots can run smoothly on a P200 w/o a 3D card. Half-Life had far worse graphics and is a few years old now, and it didn't even run smoothly with a P200.

I believe you have fallen victim to some hype, having never played the game yourself. If the game comes out and it does have amazing graphics displaying 500 sprites on the screen at once with awesome graphics on a P200 w/o a 3D card, then I owe you an apology. But somehow I seriously doubt that happening. If Lionhead Studios does accomplish this, then they should be praised by millions world-wide.

[L o k i]

They are praised by millions world wide already. It was the game at e3 that stood out the most.

*cough* hundreds of people are allowed to go into their studios to beta-test it everyday.

You are allowed to watch them make the game, etc. This is not some crap company.

[Asher]

Who said it was a crap company? I like Lionhead, I'm just saying that pushing that many polygons would take quite a hefty system, not a P200 w/o a 3D card.

And I'm curious...if the game does not require a 3D card, is it all software rendered? No OpenGL, Direct3D, etc? If so, that'd leave out some very nice graphical effects... Not to mention slow the computer to a crawl.