Europa Universalis III in Production

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Nikolai
And then again the graphics is not the point of the game, as it is in games like Oblivion and UT. The thing is, the old engine was more then 6 years old, and clearly lacking. Paradox had to make a new engine anyway, so why not make it 3D? It's not like 3D=bad, like someone is saying.

It's not like 2D= bad either, so why make it 3D? Don't fix what isn't broken.

[BeBMan]

Yeah, EU2 was working fine, so why make EU3.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Nikolai
I agree with you that is looks good. But Tassie here has made it his mission to be negative to it.

Wrong. The screenshots look like someone took a 3D model and then used Microsoft Paint's airbrush to simulate grass and such. It looks pixelated and awful.
The second shot is fine, however.

It's tolerable for me, but I just find it extremely odd that graphics of such low quality, where I have to "tolerate" them instead of enjoy them, require Pixelshading (a capability that many cards still do not have) - since it doesn't seem like the graphics are adding much to the game, I don't like the fact that it requires more and more power to run.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
It's tolerable for me, but I just find it extremely odd that graphics of such low quality, where I have to "tolerate" them instead of enjoy them, require Pixelshading (a capability that many cards still do not have) - since it doesn't seem like the graphics are adding much to the game, I don't like the fact that it requires more and more power to run.

While these shots probably don't represent the peak of 3d art, they look overall much better than shots of the (comparably) dull EU2 map. These EU2 gfx where ok to play with, but hardly anything you could call "high quality graphics".

[Nubclear]

No, I think that the EU2 graphics are better than this. These graphics, to me, look even more pixelated and "MS-Paintish" than the Eu2 graphics.
But I don't take that big of an issue with them, except the fact that there are quite a number of people who won't be able to play the game because the developers decided their graphics were just so good that they need special hardware.

[BeBMan]

EU2 had yellow ships for European 3rd era ships. YELLOW!

Many (not all though) other sprites were nice, but I really hated the yellow ships

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by BeBro
Yeah, EU2 was working fine, so why make EU3.

While it's arguable that EU2 is "working fine" a sequal should not be a fix, but an imporvement. There are many ways to improve EU2. 2D graphics, however, are not required to make it a better game. As the game still uses what is in essence a 2 dimensional map, why do we need 3D graphics? It's a purely superficial gimmick, not an improvement.

[Kuciwalker]

More to the point, the 3d graphics suck.

[General Ludd]

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by General Ludd
As the game still uses what is in essence a 2 dimensional map, why do we need 3D graphics? It's a purely superficial gimmick, not an improvement.

Nope, it's simply another approach, and opinions like "I don't like it", "it's a superficial gimmick" or "why do we need it" are pretty pointless when the decision has already been made.

As said, it has advantages in several fields, for example when a certain forms of animation is involved.

"Oh, but we don't need these animations"

Yeah, sure, but then Paradox can just stop developing games at all, since we don't need them at any cost, and we could all play (real) chess or soccer instead of computer stuff.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by BeBro


Nope, it's simply another approach, and opinions like "I don't like it", "it's a superficial gimmick" or "why do we need it" are pretty pointless when the decision has already been made.

"You'll take what we give you, AND YOU'LL LIKE IT!"

As said, it has advantages in several fields, for example when a certain forms of animation is involved.

What the hell is this supposed to mean?

Yeah, sure, but then Paradox can just stop developing games at all, since we don't need them at any cost, and we could all play (real) chess or soccer instead of computer stuff.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by General Ludd


"You'll take what we give you, AND YOU'LL LIKE IT!"

Stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say anything about "like it", where did you get that from? If you don't like it it's perfectly fine, but please don't sound as if your personal opinions have any more weight than say pro 3d opinions

What the hell is this supposed to mean?

We already discussed that here. Hint: it's on the previous page (in my forum settings )
You do read other posts before replying?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by BeBro


Stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say anything about "like it", where did you get that from? If you don't like it it's perfectly fine, but please don't sound as if your personal opinions have any more weight than say pro 3d opinions

and opinions like "I don't like it" ... are pretty pointless

We already discussed that here. Hint: it's on the previous page (in my forum settings )
You do read other posts before replying?

It's a ridiculously ambiguous statement, but my best guess is that you're saying 3D graphics are beneficial because they offer 3D graphics.

[BeBMan]

Of come on, pointless doesn't mean at all that you have to "like it", like your previous "AND YOU'LL LIKE IT" hysteria implied. I hope you don't misunderstand me deliberately to score cheap points?

It's a ridiculously ambiguous statement, but my best guess is that you're saying 3D graphics are beneficial because they offer 3D graphics.

And if that's your best guess it's really disappointing. But since I'm a friendly person I'll help you out:

I gave the example of sprites displaying anims in several directions, which is easier to do via 3d anims. Your answer was that directional stuff is not needed. But - teh horror - many players do enjoy more complex anims, so the "don't need it" may go for you, but it's far from being a generally accepted wisdom

Generally the more complex the anims are, the better it is using 3d to make them. That's because it is much more difficult to generate complex anims in 2d. Try to make all Civ3 units for example purely in 2d software with the same quality - it's theoretically possible, but practically a pain in the ass, because it involves lots of manual work on every frame.

3d anims are mainly done via keyframes, so that you don't have to animate every frame. You define key points of the anim, the software does the rest - much easier.

So in the end it depends what you want to display in your game - for simple, static sprites 2d is ok, probably even easier, but not for anims, esp when they get more complex.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by BeBro


And if that's your best guess it's really disappointing. But since I'm a friendly person I'll help you out:

I gave the example of sprites displaying anims in several directions, which is easier to do via 3d anims. Your answer was that directional stuff is not needed. But - teh horror - many players do enjoy more complex anims, so the "don't need it" may go for you, but it's far from being a generally accepted wisdom

Generally the more complex the anims are, the better it is using 3d to make them. That's because it is much more difficult to generate complex anims in 2d. Try to make all Civ3 units for example purely in 2d software with the same quality - it's theoretically possible, but practically a pain in the ass, because it involves lots of manual work on every frame.

3d anims are mainly done via keyframes, so that you don't have to animate every frame. You define key points of the anim, the software does the rest - much easier.

So in the end it depends what you want to display in your game - for simple, static sprites 2d is ok, probably even easier, but not for anims, esp when they get more complex.

Doesn't Civ3 have a 2D graphics engine?