What's wrong with you people?!?

[JDI_Falcon]

I seem to notice alot of talk about a improved graphics engine. Like someone said in the post about Multiplayer only civ3 that they would have more time to develop a graphics engine. That is the last thing you want!! CTP!! RED ALERT 2, all AOE games!! Better graphics maybe, but terrible, repeptitive games. I could live with TOT level graphics and be completely content. Plus, some of us do not have 700mhz processors!! Graphics don't make the game, gameplay and balance does. I just had to vent my anger!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Calm down dude! If Civ3 had Civ2 type graphics I'd be disappointed. Nice graphics aren't always the bringer of bad game. For example play Deus Ex or Baldur's Gate II.

I'm very happy with the new graphics, they look amazing!

[Yog-Sothoth]

I agree with JDI, graphics beyond what civ 2 has are next to useless. After the initial "wow" you end up turning of animation, wonder movies etc, to speed up the game. To fancy graphics just clutter up the game.

[Windborne]

I'd like better graphics, but not 3d animated ones, those ones annoy me, especially when the units talk. Maybe consentrate on better looking/merging tile squares, a more 3d feel to the environment, more types of tile, etc . . . .

[Snapcase on Snapcase]

You all live in the 20th century, dudes. A game released without good graphics in late 2002 will be the laughing stock of the market. I for one would not buy it.

[yin26]

Why is this a zero-sum topic to some people?

[wittlich]

yin26, my thoughts exactly!

[colossus]

Actually there are enough 'graphics games' that really suck!
PLAYABILITY, SMOOTHNESS and FUN are what we want.
That Civ2 could still makes some sales now makes clear my point.

[Ralf]

Suggested Civ-3 feature-additions shouldnt be zero-sum topics - but, on the other hand: they shouldnt be "the more the merrier" topics either. Believe it or not; there are practical limits in how much Firaxis can squeeze into the game; how much the average civ-player can digest - and, not least important: how much the expected recommended (not minimum) PC-configuration demands of max 500 MHZ, actually can handle.

Many TBS players just dont buy new computers every 12-18 month, like perhaps (some) Action-gamers do.
Check out Poll: Whats your system spec?.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 28, 2001).]

[ContradictioN]

LOL..This is amazing....WHY.....oh WHY does 'good graphics' say 'bad gameplay'?

ROFLMAO

sarcasm
OH NOOOOOOOOOOOO The game has good graphics!! THAT MEANS.....that the team are only focusing on the graphics! ARGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sarcasm

[Yog-Sothoth]

quote: Originally posted by ContradictioN on 01-28-2001 07:48 AM LOL..This is amazing....WHY.....oh WHY does 'good graphics' say 'bad gameplay'?

Because, sadly this is often the case. The mayority of game developers seems to think that everything has to be done in 3D, no matter what kind of game it is. This often result in beautiful graphics and crappy gameplay.

[tniem]

quote: Originally posted by Yog-Sothoth on 01-28-2001 02:18 PM Because, sadly this is often the case. The mayority of game developers seems to think that everything has to be done in 3D, no matter what kind of game it is. This often result in beautiful graphics and crappy gameplay.

I have to disagree. A majority of games are bad not because game makers spent time on graphics and not gameplay, but instead because game makers spent very little time on the game at all.

It is not that hard to make great graphics but it is hard to make a great game. Great games require a lot of time both in designing and then play testing.

Look at games like Sacrifice, Baldur's Gate, and others. All great games with good graphics. Civ III needs good to great graphics to sell copies. I have no doubt that the game will have a good graphic interface and look good to boot. The question is whether the game play will balance and that is what will take the time and energy.

[Ralf]

The problem isnt "great graphics" in Civ-3 - why should it be? The problem is instead any attempt in turning Civ-3 into some kind of 3D game. Im not thinking so much on animated units. That can be optional.
What im aiming at here is foolish ideas about Populous-style 3D globe-maps; maps with several 3D map-layers on top of each other (allowing u-boats passing "underneath" surface-ships, and so on). Ideas about an optional ability to "see the map from the units point of view" ala Theme Park (I dont know if the latter ever have been suggested, but if it has - I wouldnt be that surprised).
The bottom line is that this kind of 3D-dreams is so totally misplaced in a TBS-style game like Civ-3. It doesnt add anything to the important just-one-more-turn factor. So why waste time in continuing discussing it?

As for "good graphics"; I expect razor-sharp 768 x 1024 (or higher) 32-bit graphics (if really needed. Anyway 16-bit low-res alternatives is also available) and optional unit- and tile-animations. Isnt this enough?

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 28, 2001).]

[Carolus Rex]

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 01-28-2001 03:21 PM As for "good graphics"; I expect razor-sharp 768 x 1024 (or higher) 32-bit graphics (if really needed. Anyway 16-bit low-res alternatives is also available) and optional unit- and tile-animations. Isnt this enough?

Yes, it sure is!

Carolus

[Wazell]

Populous-style 3D globe maps is not a foolish idea! It's unnecessary though. But what about using UFO/XCOM style 3D globe maps?
Also several 3D map-layers are not needed. Even in old Panzer General planes could move to the same hex as enemy ground units, or at least pass through it, if I remember correctly.

Firaxis puts a lot of effort to make wonderful graphics for Civ3, but they still have promised to keep the oldie style units etc. as an option for scenarios and such. It will work, if it doesn't, then they'll patch it. Civ3 simply won't sell without good graphics. Of course there are good games without graphics, Nethack and other roguelike games for example, but they're freely downloadable.