3D Graphics, do we really need ´em

mini98ad · December 6, 2000, 16:27

The main issue would be, do we want Civ2 to be as cumbersome to work with as CTP I+II, SMAC, and other new wersions of old turnbased classics....
As for myself.. One of the best thing about Civ2, and Civ1 for that matter, is the simple and handy interface that it uses..
I played CTP I+II, and they suck as far as their interface goes. Granted, CTP II is better than CTP I.
But none of them matches the one from Civ2..
The same thing goes for SMAC, but it isent as bad as CTP´s, but not as good as Civ2 either...

I dont need all those fancy graphics, i just want a game that rocks. And hey, if Civ2 dont, then what does ?

Yog-Sothoth · December 6, 2000, 16:32

100% agree with you

Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto · December 6, 2000, 16:53

I have not played CTP1 or 2 yet, so I can't say.

But what I can say about graphics, is that Civ3 should have good graphics, (although the game still would be fun without 'em) I mean, just look at Diablo 1 and 2, those games rock not only because there fun, but the graphics rock! Although You are right, if the game was alot of fun, the graphics wouldn't matter.
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited December 06, 2000).]

Yog-Sothoth · December 6, 2000, 17:02

I think Diablo II have rather mediocre graphics. It's slow and only 640x480, but as you say if the game is fun the graphics don't matter.

Tical_2000 · December 6, 2000, 17:50

Diablo: No offense but graphics are for kids. Civ2's graphics were fine by many people's standards and the Civ2 interface remains unmatched in my opinion for its ease, usefulness, and simplicity. What a true civver would care about is a competent AI and some of the concepts and ideas that were left out of the previous civs. If you like the graphics in Diablo, play Diablo. Civ is all about class, not eye candy.

Deathwalker · December 7, 2000, 05:13

Though I agree to a point, I think some better graphics aid the game, but them again the graphics in SMAC were crap.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

mini98ad · December 7, 2000, 20:51

As a follow up on the topic that i posted yeeterday, i´d like to bring this into consideration.....

For anyone playing new games, any type of that matter.
Most of the games uses fancy graphics, that might look good, but slows down the entire process of playing these games..Most RTS Games somwhat incorperate this stupid idea, that fancy graphics makes the game better.... They dont !!!!.
As far as turnbased games go, hey.... Has Heroes of might and magic changed ?.. No.. It´s the same o´l, and i love it...
I`d prefer that Civ3 uses the design founded in Civ2.
Cause ?.. it´s the same o´l and i love it !!!

Ribannah · December 7, 2000, 20:55

quote:

Originally posted by mini98ad on 12-06-2000 03:27 PM
I dont need all those fancy graphics, i just want a game that rocks. And hey, if Civ2 dont, then what does ?

Hear, hear

!

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

Urban Ranger · December 8, 2000, 00:22

3D graphics? Why do we need 3D graphics? They get in the way. When I was playing Panzer General 3, sometimes I can't issue commands to certain units because other units got in the way, and I have to rotate the map until I could access those units. It was a hassle.

UltraSonix · December 8, 2000, 08:27

I know the following thread isn't quite what mini98ad meant by "3d graphics", but it's an excellent (and funny) read on the issue of 3d graphics.

Civ III Engine Proposal

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary... (And no, koalas don't usually speak!)

hHydro · December 8, 2000, 21:24

quote:

Originally posted by UltraSonix on 12-08-2000 07:27 AM
I know the following thread isn't quite what mini98ad meant by "3d graphics", but it's an excellent (and funny) read on the issue of 3d graphics.

Civ III Engine Proposal

Hahaha.. poor Loki.

Anyways, I'm going to play devil's advocate for a second here.

I could be wrong, but I think we're getting a lopsided view of this debate because of the people who use this board.

We have a lot of people here who like to fiddle with the games and who like to make scenarios. We even have a fair share of full blown modders. Some of us are just plain geeks.

As such, we're the ones who are going to put gameplay above graphics. I'm not advocating anything different, but let's face it; in order for a game like Civ3 to be a success with people outside it's niche of hardcore gamers, it really should have up-to-date graphics. It's not like I could ever see a company like Firaxis sacrificing gameplay for eyecandy, but still, I don't think we should all be pleading with them to make everything 2d. Leave it to Firaxis to come up with a good way to accomodate everyone's need. With luck maybe they can pull off the fabled "best of both worlds' solution where you are able to use both.. who knows?

Abverticus · December 11, 2000, 19:55

Graphics eh,
Well I believe graphics is a good part of a game, but not important when I play, sure you might have a game with a high res, and runs very smooth, but if it's not a good game in the gameplay part, no use in having it! I personally dont mind graphics, not at all! I mean, today I still play colonization and civ2 which have great game play, then you consider Civ : Call to Power. It was 2d, but did anyone notice it was so slow? That was because they did not want to use Units.gif ect for sprites. This slowed down the game and I really did'nt like the game anyway :P
Abverticus

Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto · December 11, 2000, 20:38

When you have a fast computer (500 mhz), the graphics do not slow the game down, but, like I said, if the game is a blast, the graphics could be crappy, and Ill still have fun.

p.s. dont blow me out just cause I said I liked graphics.