3-D, Will it Ruin Civ3?

[Gameopolis]

http://www.geocities.com/gameopolis/images/picciv3d.gif

What do you think of the Picture? Will 3-D land ruin Civ3? Don't worry i created the pic not offical!

------------------
GAMEOPOLIS

[BeeBee]

be sure it would ruin if it looked like that

[Par4]

OMG Roller Coaster tycoon engine plus civ engine = crappola, that was great lets hope Civ3 doesnt lease the RCT engine and reuse Civ buildings

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

[Joe Bourque]

My bet is that we will see some form of 3D terrain in Civ3, probably along the line of an enhanced version of what we saw in SMAC. Personally, I think this is neat, but it dosn't add too much to the game, instead it adds to the feeling that you are playing with miniture toys in a sandbox rather then the vast map of an entire world (mountain ranges resemble a single rolling hill etc.).

Probably the map will be something like SMAC, but you'll be able to rotate it 360 degrees, and possibly change the angle as well.

Personally, I'd enjoy a really attractivly drawn map along the lines of the very first Civilization. I like the overview, as though it's a real map you're looking at, better then the isometric POV. But I know Firaxis would be crazy to do that in the modern age of 3D hype. Still, I do like to entertain the fantasy that it will be included as an alternate view-mode.

Joe

[Theben]

The 3-d of SMAC is an abomination. ONLY if they use a "battle map" should Firaxis even consider 3-d.

[UltraSonix]

First - Gameopolis, if the "3-d" looks like that then the graphic artists should be sacked.

Second - I thought SMAC had very appropriate graphics. Civ3 should look like that, but obviously the terrain would be coloured a bit more like good old Earth.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[Steve Clark]

That really looks bad. The best idea for graphics, given the scale of Civ, is Railroad Tycoon II (as has been brought up before). http://www.poptop.com/RT2/Screenshot...taly_small.jpg
Others have mentioned some of the RTS graphics, but those all would be impossible because Civ is continental-scale as oppose to city or regional scale.

[Theben]

Has anyone considered the fact that from the view of the player, the earth should appear flat? There isn't enough differentation in altitude to show elevation at this distance. Civ2's landscape is both more realistic and better for gameplay. If Firaxis uses the 3-d terrain for a main map I'll be VERY disappointed.

[Quartz Dragon]

quote: Originally posted by Theben on 06-11-2000 10:47 PM The 3-d of SMAC is an abomination..

I agree, the SMAC map did not look realistic.

quote: Originally posted by Theben on 06-11-2000 10:47 PM ONLY if they use a "battle map" should Firaxis even consider 3-d.

Is a battle map (similar to Master of Magic) being contiplated?

[Theben]

"Is a battle map (similar to Master of Magic) being contiplated?"

Dunno...but it was suggested in the List (probably not).

[Hasdrubal]

This is probably a dissenting opinion, but I think Gameopolis' map isn't all that bad! With a proper, professional make-over it could work. Civ with a SimCity look. A 3D map does allow for some great new features. Just look at those howitzers lined up on top of 'Mount Gameopolis'!!
If CivIII will be 'Civ3D', let's hope that they won't use that awful SMAC map. Railroad Tycoon II has a beautiful map engine, though SimCity has a clearer one.

------------------
Ceterum censeo Romanem esse delendam.

[L o k i]

TheBen, I respect most of your posts, but this one here, annoys me!

Can't some of you people comprehend 3D?

I have a really tough time explaining it to women, not one can grab the concept of it.

Is it true, that some people just don't 'get it'?

It's really starting to fustrate me. Me and my mates were all talking about it, about how so many people just don't 'see it'. It's almost like they only see whats right infront of them, they see no depth or other possibilities. Wait thats called something, isn't it??

[rremus]

I was a big fan of PanzerGeneral II. But when they came out with that 3D stuff in version III, a hate story started between me and the game.
CIV is a strategy game, it's supposed to be played on a map. I would love the map to have a cool look, the mountain to display as mountains and so on, but I wanna play on a map. If I have to start rotating the map and changing the view angle to locate my cities behind mountain hill, I would not play it too long...
Additionally, the 3D will take more computing resurces. I rather see them consumed by better AI than 3D!
And if the 3D will look like the one in the link above, then probably I will continue playing CIVII for a while...

[This message has been edited by rremus (edited June 13, 2000).]

[Tiberius]

I think it depends on the point of view of the player. From the normal (standard) view, the world should appear (almost) flat (Theben has right here). If you want to zoom closely enough, the world should appear 3D.
I agree that seeing an army of howitzers and tanks attacking some mech. infantries fortified in the mountains would be nice in 3D, but this is more like a battleview, not the classical Civ2 view.
The CityView and the BattleView(???) definitely MUST be 3D.

[Par4]

I would perfer just a good flat map with some nice semi 3d graphics. Great detail in mountains, trees and stuff maybe its hard to describe but I see the cities and stuff in my head. I don't want a sphere map, seems too much like Risk2s and that is ok but not real good. The map has to show changes in terrain like huge mines, pollution, deforestation, acid rain, suburbs. Terrain should change and areas should look alike and gradually change. Well that's my synopsis of my map back to the spanish books

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