After the whining: Kudos where it's due.

Kolyana · December 18, 2001, 23:44

Okay, let's forget the poop AI and various whinge making thread beginners, I think it's time to give Kudos where it's due ...

I think the art work in Civ3 kicks ass. The units, the animations and the terrain are all damn pretty spiffy and they really do knock the spots off any of the competitors.

Just my 2 cents thrown into the face of adversity.

yin26 · December 18, 2001, 23:54

The units are sloppy and the terrain, once filled with putrid mines and rails, is one of the most horrid things I've seen in computer graphics the past 2 years.

Kolyana · December 18, 2001, 23:58

LOL! Er .. I don't even think that I can compromise with that one! Somewhat graphic ...

yin26 · December 19, 2001, 00:02

Then again, when Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles came out, I leaned over to my friend and said: "Ever wonder what the fastest failing cartoon will be?"

A billion dollars later ...

cassembler · December 19, 2001, 01:54

Quote:

Okay, let's forget the poop AI and various whinge making thread beginners, I think it's time to give Kudos where it's due ...

No, I agree with this. While I definitely have a few complaints about the game- mostly features that are hopefully-yet-to-be-implemented-in-the-editor, the game as a whole satisfies my $50. I could understand a hardcore gamer not giving it the time of day, but I'm not a hardcore gamer.

Maybe I'm easy to please, but I'm not gullible. I bought this freakin' game and I ENJOY THIS FREAKIN' GAME!!!

As far as the rails-mine-everywhere garbage, I find myself NOT building roads and mines on hilld or mountains. This might help a needy AI, AND my territory looks SOOOOO much better... Besides, by the time I've taken an AI city, I've usually already destroyed everything around it.

My two puffs...

Comrade Tribune · December 19, 2001, 02:11

The terrain, esp. colours, is so bad that someone made a mod within hours...

And who are the competitors? There are not many new civgames around. Strategygames at large, take a look at Heroes of Might and Magic III. Now that is what I´d call good-looking graphics.

Moraelin · December 19, 2001, 09:04

I'll have to aggree that the graphics do look good. A MINOR gripe would be that it's often not easy to tell what something is, though. For example, awesome drawn as those population heads may be, I often find myself thinking "ugh... are those guys happy, content or unhappy." It's more of a problem of consistency, though. The happy heads for some nations look downright orgasmic, while for some other nations they're closer to the first one's content faces. And what looks like one nation's unhappy faces, for another might mean content. When you end up with a multi-cultural empire, it can become a bit of a pain in the rear.

Deornwulf · December 19, 2001, 09:31

I'm really impressed with the detailed work that went into the palace screen. I especially appreciate the paste over aspect as opposed to that silly dissolve that was in Civ2. The edges of the rocks of the original screen just look so cute peeking around the edges of my palace.

And the graphics for the wonders are to die for. I giggle like a two-year old everytime I see the sandbox for Magellan's Voyage. Given the over-all quality of the graphics, it's easy to see where Firaxis spent their time and money.

Cookie Monster · December 19, 2001, 11:29

I like the terrain graphics even when filled with mines and railroads. Remember how Civ2 terrain looked after the ai covered every tile in its realm with railroads and mines? What's the difference with Civ3. Seeing the graphics for the first time might be uncomfortable at first but once one is accustomed to it it's not that bad really.

Those citizen faces? Yes, they are extremely hard to discern which ones are happy and which ones are not. After you get used to them though they are recognizable. Think of it as meeting a group of people for the first time. Initially you get the faces and names mixed up but after a while you begin to know the names and faces. Same thing with the pop faces. Keep in mind that faces to the extreme left usually denote happy/content, faces in the middle mean content, and faces to the extreme right mean unhappy or angry/entertainers.

So in short I submit that once the eye becomes aquainted with the graphics in Civ3, the new style graphics (as compared to previous Civ games) aren't that bad. This is a TBS game, we who enjoy this sort of thing aren't too concerned with graphics, as long as the game is fun and not bogged down in micromanaging.

"Gangsters". Does anyone remember this game. It came out a few years ago, from Hothouse Creations I believe, and covered the prohibition era during the '20's. This games graphics were abysmal especially the citymap screens where trying to figure out where you were in the city was confusing. And talk about serious micromanagement! My point is that there are games out there that deserve to be shot down and then there are games that deserve to be given a chance before judgements are passed, Civ3 one of them.

I'm sure I'm not alone in that the enjoyment factor of Civ3 is great. IMHO the astonomical level of complaining WRT Civ3 has been so enormous that it's getting old. Stop for a moment and play the game. Minds are like parachutes, they only work when open. Get acquainted with how this game works. Look at all the things that bug you about this game and understand that it's part of the system. Read Velociryx's strategy guides in the strategy forum and you'll improve your game. I'm not saying that there aren't things that need to be fixed but overall Civ3 is a fun and very challenging game. Sometimes a battle won't go the way you expect it too (like when your veteran musketman get's decked by a veteran swordsman) but in real life war rarely goes the way it is planned. In the heat of batte a unit that everyone expected to lose suddenly and for no real explanation rallies and defeats it's foes. Ask any soldier who has been in any battle and he'll tell you.

These are just my opinion. I do not mean to attack or offend anyone.