Poor Graphics

Bkeela · April 29, 2001, 13:24

I haven't been paying too much attention to what's going on, and frankly I don't understand why Firaxis would allow such screen shots to be displayed if they arn't the final look. It just seems like they are shoving what they have to sate a hungry fanbase.

I'm going to do my best to avoid the hype with Civ III, and when I walk into the shop and see it on the shelf, I'll then go through this site with a fine tooth comb. There is only misery for those who follow a game with baited breath.

I just find it strange that everyone else seems to think the graphics look alright. I mean, this is Civ III we are talking about, not some cheap imitation.

Bkeela.

EnochF · April 29, 2001, 13:50

Would you like some pâté with your whine?

Seriously, if you have some constructive criticism to offer, go right ahead. (For example, the roads and rivers need to be wider and easier to see.)

Bkeela · April 29, 2001, 22:59

It would be nice if the roads actually looked like roads, instead of big, thick brown lines that appeared to go over the top of forests etc. Surely it would be possible for roads to be slightly indented, and realistic looking, rather than artwork no better than Colonization.

Yes, the rivers need to be wider, and more distinct, and for the love of God, get rid of the current irrigation artwork. Civ I had better looking irrigation art.

I was hoping they would intergrate the 3d landscape of Alpha Centauri, but with more polish. But come on, the screen shots displayed maps no better than Test of Time or CTP. What's going on?

And basically the colours are just drab. It would be nice to have a vivid looking ocean that did have some kind of animation, instead of just a drab blue blanket.

Bkeela.

[This message has been edited by Bkeela (edited April 29, 2001).]

Bkeela · April 30, 2001, 00:50

Well, it seems that the game play is going to be great, but looking at the latest screen shots, I can't help but feel slightly, no, greatly disappointed.

To me, the screen shots looked no better than Test Of Time. Even Call To Power looked nicer. I admit that I expected a leap of graphical improvement like that from Civ I to Civ II. I mean, even Alpha Centauri looks better.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not really hung-up on this issue, and I'm not after map animations or anything, but I was hoping for something a bit more pretty. The units look great, so I truly hope they put A LOT more work into making the map a pleasure to behold.

Bkeela.

Lawrence of Arabia · April 30, 2001, 00:53

Have you noticed the difference in graphics from the ones of the PC gaming website and the ones which are actually on the magazine? If it changes this quickly every month for the next coupla months, the graphics will be real nice for the final product.

------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now

Zylka · April 30, 2001, 01:31

Links to these screenshots?

yin26 · April 30, 2001, 02:29

You mean you can't find the screenshots? Surprise...surprise. For such an active poster here and all...

I made the comments when these shots first came out that these look like graphic place-holders. This seems to fit with Firaxis' method of adding graphics and sounds last (of course, that is a double edged sword).

I imagine that Civ3's final graphics will be quite good. As for why they would show these graphics, I suppose they have to start hyping the game sometime...

Adm.Naismith · April 30, 2001, 04:52

The more I look at the early screenshot, the more I scratch my head in doubt.
Ok, Yin26 live in the hope of "placeholders", and surely they are, to some extent, but...

How far can a graphic be stretched to cover the flat, flat, flat, very flat word of CIV III? My God, are we in the 2001 of games or what?

I can play Chess on a flat chessboard, but surely can't see the point to play a game (as strategic as it is) on a flat isometric perspective.

I was hoping for enhancement to SMAC, that is more a draft than a final, but at least was a step into 3D looking.
Hell, I lost and forget a proper spherical globe map, I miss the smart exagonal map and survive to remember, but surely I'll have some hard time trying to living with a completely flat game (BTW MarkG and DanQ, don't you have an UBB code for a flat font?

).

The units seems more like lead model on top of paper board, and as I'd like all interesting game model enhancement (the Culture concept on top of all) I'd really see them fitted nicely into an effective graphic display.

Don't get me wrong, but I think all of you know the old difference about "map" and "territory". Now I think that Firaxis should decide if its Civ III main screen is a map or a territory, because the actual mix doesn't do well enough, IMO.
Map feature
Let me see essential info, cut every unnecessary element that can distract me from my game needs:
- flat as a chessboard (no isometric),
- clear square borders (grid) to help players counting movements, see ZOC and city influence extensions
- straight lines to show roads and rivers
- higly contrasted colors (unrealistic, if necessary, as in false colors photo, often used in astronomy) to help distinguish elements as bonus resources or units from the background
- isometric line to show terrain quote (if relevant for movement, fire advantage or else).
- "onion skin" layers to filter separate info, to avoid a cluttered map
Territory feature
- as 3D as possible to realistical reproduce a world view
- quickly rotable to 3 axis to gain the better point of view
- zoomable to the pratical extent needed to let the player have a "birds' eye look" to the whole, then going as near to the action to (micro)manage the required game details
- as graphically detailed as possible (at the chosed zoom level) to increment the "suspension of disbelieve"

Sid spoke about CIV III as the end of the old reviewers "great game, but the graphics..." closing, as common for Sid previus efforts.
I really hope that Sid has some great white rabbit into his graphic department hat, because as I think gameplay and strategic models are a must to the success, the sense of Civ II "deja vu" on the graphic side will certainly kill the game sales.
Civ 2.5 syndrome, you know.

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

yin26 · April 30, 2001, 04:57

Adm.Naismith:

I think my optimism is tied mainly to the fact that I've been involved in some Alpha - Beta - Gold stuff in the past and was shocked at how quickly and amazingly things like art and sound came together almost at the last moments sometimes. And considering that Firaxis has publically stated that they do the brunt of that stuff AFTER the game mechanics are in place, and you can readily see why I'm not worried.

If Sid said the final graphics are going to put to rest the "good game, but the graphics..." complaint, then I honestly believe him. The guy has more than once pushed the industry envelope. With all the resources at his disposal, Civ3 will NO DOUBT be graphically/acoustically stunning.

Maybe I'm just a Sid junky.

Zanzin · April 30, 2001, 05:22

My opinions echo that of yins. Added to the belief that the graphics we're seeing aren't the final ones is the statement made on the firaxis website that goes something along the liens of "making civ3 the best looking civ type game ever" - now, unless everybody at firaxis is blind, they will realise the current graphics aren't that crash hot, and, as such, they will be spruced up before the gold release.

Bereta_Eder · April 30, 2001, 06:14

As long as they don't hurt my eyes, I don't care about graphics in Civ 3

m_m_x · April 30, 2001, 06:23

at the current state graphics are ugly...
i hope firaxis will keep to what sid said promised that civ3 will be the best looking TBS game ever.
we need animation of the sea, of the landscape (trees,rivers,birds,clouds and more..),the cities (smoke and fire above cities when there is a riot,a rainbow when people are happy, smoke from houses chimney to see that there is activity there..) mabybe resources like the dear (or the moose) will wander form tile to tile-like a real herd (and that way the resource will be available only when its within the city radius).

Lord_Davinator · April 30, 2001, 07:42

Almost everything about the map is kinda yukky... still I find it better than SMAC... which I really sucked, if you ask me. It resembles CTP a lot... and ctp wasn't that good in making you feel happy just by looking at your city. I think the swamps, rivers, roads, irrigation and possibly even the sea has to be made a bit more nicer. The mountains seem to be the only really gooooood thing about the maps.

Ralf · April 30, 2001, 08:25

The SMAC-style wavy terrain-style isnt suitable for Civ-3, I think. What I instead want to see is a more embossed 3D-relief look. The level-differences should be small, but clearly noticeable. Nothing like SC-3000 however - such big level-differences is too much in Civ-3. Perhaps only half of that, or even less.

- Level 1: Deep ocean
- Level 2: shallow ocean
- Level 3: Shore, lowland (support all terrain-types)
- Level 4: plateau, highland (support all, except djungle & swamp)

Sea & river both on level 3-4, but minus 0.5 level. The water should be bluish semi-transparent so one can see any sea/river/ocean indentations.
Also; everything should of course be bright and crisp-sharp. Not slighly blurry, like the horrible TOT-graphics.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 30, 2001).]

Russian King · May 1, 2001, 05:20

quote:

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith on 04-30-2001 04:52 AM
How far can a graphic be stretched to cover the flat, flat, flat, very flat word of CIV III? My God, are we in the 2001 of games or what?
I can play Chess on a flat chessboard, but surely can't see the point to play a game (as strategic as it is) on a flat isometric perspective.

I disagree!
Flat is simple, not only that! its better and more comfortable. I dont like to have to have the grid on: its very ingraphical. So it would be like playing a game rather than like ruling a nation!