Good graphics == good game!!

[loinburger]

I'm warring with myself. When Civ III comes out, should I spend $50 on the game, or should I instead spend $10 on Civ II (which looks like about the same game, judging by the previews)?

The answer is obvious! Just look at GameSpy's report on the game:

quote: But perhaps the most substantial improvement that Firaxis will be showing at E3 is Civilization III's graphics, which are an enormous leap over preceding Civilization games.

Better graphics? Hell yeah! Better graphics will be well worth the extra forty dollars!

Is anybody else who worked on the list feeling like they wasted a whole helluva lot of time? I know I am. Pleh. Maybe SimGolf will be a worthwhile purchase...

------------------
"It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my reasons for them!"
-Nietzsche

-Quantity of opinions is inversely proportional to quantity of knowledge.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, it IS Gamespot... the graphics probably were the best part to them... I can see it now:

"Resources? Who cares! The Graphics rock!"

[aCa]

Graphic...... thats the reason why to by a civ game? Your not a civ addict are you?

------------------
aCa (a Civilization addict)

[Zanzin]

I don't understand how GS can call these "good" graphics...the map looks, frankly, disgusting. The water is what does it for me though - or, rather, doesn't do it for me - it's just way to light

[Captain]

Sure gameplay is the primary factor -it's gotta be fun to play, but great graphics help ALOT!
I don't mean this 3-D graphics bandwagon all these gaming companies are jumping on since that often sucks. (recall Civ 2's city-view, it was 3-D but it was horrible). Fortunately Civ 3's 3-D grfx look pretty good so far.

Besides the non-intuitive tech tree, the thing that turned me most off of SMAC was those horrible infantry graphics. It looked like they were pushing around treadmills with giant drills on the ends. I WANT MY SOLDIERS TO LOOK INTIMIDATING! SMAC's infantry looked stupid and sissy.
sounds superficial, I know, but after a while I just couldn't stand looking at the stupid little treadmills.

btw, anyone want to buy a used copy of SMAC and its exapnsion pack? Maybe Firaxis will let me have a trade-in for Civ 3 !

[Captain]

I was just thinking, anyone here play Heroes of Might and Magic 3?
One of my favourite things about that game was building up my towns because they just looked so damn cool!
When you built the Dragon Cliffs in the Rampart Town, that was so awesome. Along with the great music tracks, these graphics made you really feel the atmosphere. That's what Civ needs. It needs some great grfx and sound to immerse you into the game so you feel like you are truly ruling an empire here.

[Urban Ranger]

Maybe, but no matter how good the graphics are, or how good the music scores are, after 50 or 100 hours of game time, it'd be "same old, same old."

[Jarouik]

Surely, graphics don't mean much when it comes to gameplay, but they still add an atmosphere to the game that hopefully keeps anyone trying out the game hooked long enough to get hopelessly addicted, and in addition they are something you can nostalgize about in the years to come - I still remember the palace in the original Civilization, as well as the leaders' faces, rather useless graphics though they were. I believe there are many great games, strategy in particular, that I have never gotten to know well enough to start liking them because of the looks of the game - if it has a complex and clinical interface that looks about as fun and intriguing as a spreadsheet, the atmosphere is so lacking that I doubt I could be interested in the game long enough to start appreciating whatever superb gameplay features it might have. Heroes 3 was and is indeed great in this respect - the town graphics were very beatiful, and the musical backgrounds fit them well.

However, regarding Technophile's fear that graphics are the most important improvement between Civ II and III, I certainly doubt that. They are the most visible one, the one that you can see from the screenshots, the one that previews aimed at the public at large, like Gamespy's report, will emphasize, the one that is required for the game to be marketable in the first place, but I am certain that anyone who has played Civilization long enough will find that all the numerous changes and brand new features in the gameplay are by far the most important thing in Civ III; improving graphics certainly does not exclude improving the game as well, which is what recent information from Firaxis proves, since they seem intent on creating an improved game that would please Civilization fans and novices alike, not just something that looks like Civilization and is pretty (Call to Power springs to mind, although I've only played CtP 2 and haven't finished a single game, since it took so long I got bored, so I have no more specific views of my own on the game...).

[BeBMan]

I´m just glad that they don´t have these DARK terrain gfx that are known from ToT, they were a pain for my eyes...Good graphics are important, despite a lot of civers say only better AI/gameplay/whatever counts. A new civgame with nice AI, but absolutely ugly gfx would be a disapointment for me as well as a combination of good gfx/stupid AI.


------------------
Civ2000 hosted by CivII Universum

[Theben]

quote: Originally posted by technophile on 05-17-2001 06:45 PM Is anybody else who worked on the list feeling like they wasted a whole helluva lot of time? I know I am. Pleh. Maybe SimGolf will be a worthwhile purchase...

Would it make you feel better if civ3 had alien wizards armed with plasma rifles?



------------------
Lack of knowledge begins with the phrase: I don't care.

[Grumbold]

Reviewers have to rave about things that the screenshots can demonstrate to them and to the reader. Looking from the Civ I city screen to the Civ III city screen there is no doubt that the improvement is vast. To enthuse about the enhanced trade, dimpomacy or combat properly you'd actually have to play a beta version to see if it made sense. Saying it works wonderfully just on the basis of some flat screenshots is asking to be mighty embarrassed if the end product plays like a pile of poo. Safer to say "pretty" and then repeat the Firaxis press statement on the rest of the features.

[Jarouik]

quote: Originally posted by Grumbold on 05-18-2001 06:22 AM Reviewers have to rave about things that the screenshots can demonstrate to them and to the reader. Looking from the Civ I city screen to the Civ III city screen there is no doubt that the improvement is vast. To enthuse about the enhanced trade, dimpomacy or combat properly you'd actually have to play a beta version to see if it made sense. Saying it works wonderfully just on the basis of some flat screenshots is asking to be mighty embarrassed if the end product plays like a pile of poo. Safer to say "pretty" and then repeat the Firaxis press statement on the rest of the features.

Well, I do not base my assumptions on how it works on screenshots... I meant that what I have read about the new ideas and concepts in gameplay has impressed me and made me believe that Firaxis at least has lots of new ideas and features, most of which sound great, although we cannot know how well it will actually play, apart from Firaxis people saying it is already fun to play.

[Gammaray fan]

There is a great confusion out in the world today...
There is NO divide as many suggest between gameplay and graphics.
They are ONE AND THE SAME. Just as a better resource model may make a game more fun to play, good graphics (by that I don't mean technically advanced like 3D or whatever, but GRAPHICS THAT MAKE THE GAME MORE ENJOYABLE) make a game play better.
EXAMPLE: Civ1 had next to no diplomacy or trade, but succeeded because the graphics were the best that has ever been seen in a civ-type game to date.
1. City view felt warm and constructive and made you WANT to build that useless obsolete wonder... Compare with Civ2's lifeless city view...
2. Diplomacy was much more fun than in civ2 or CTP because the leader faces were comical and expressive (luckily they seem to be bringing this element back in Civ3!)
I hope this has opened your eyes to the importance of GOOD graphics.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps if I replace the word GOOD with EFFECTIVE, people will understand better...

[Gammaray fan]

There is a great confusion out in the world today...
There is NO divide as many suggest between gameplay and graphics.
They are ONE AND THE SAME. Just as a better resource model may make a game more fun to play, good graphics (by that I don't mean technically advanced like 3D or whatever, but GRAPHICS THAT MAKE THE GAME MORE ENJOYABLE) make a game play better.
EXAMPLE: Civ1 had next to no diplomacy or trade, but succeeded because the graphics were the best that has ever been seen in a civ-type game to date.
1. City view felt warm and constructive and made you WANT to build that useless obsolete wonder... Compare with Civ2's lifeless city view...
2. Diplomacy was much more fun than in civ2 or CTP because the leader faces were comical and expressive (luckily they seem to be bringing this element back in Civ3!)
I hope this has opened your eyes to the importance of GOOD graphics.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps if I replace the word GOOD with EFFECTIVE, people will understand better...

[Gammaray fan]

OOPS... DOUBLE POST!