04-12-2004 04:17									#1
	What Should Civ IV's Graphics Look Like? Remove this text

Just curious what people think, as quite a few don't like the "feel" of the graphics as they stand right now.

What games do you think have the best graphical feel that would fit Civ IV? Screenshots are certainly welcome to give people an impression of what you're talking about.

	04-12-2004 04:19									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I personally love the look of Civ 3...

	04-12-2004 04:25									#3
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

As I've said before... I'll take anything as long as it's not downright ugly and making things indistuinguishable, as it was often the case in SMAC. I'll take Civ1 or Civ3 or CtP graphics happily, they were all clear. I want the graphics to clearly show which tile is which and which tile is what terrain. That's as far as my must-list goes. Other than that, I don't really care.

	04-12-2004 04:43									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Solver As I've said before... I'll take anything as long as it's not downright ugly and making things indistuinguishable, as it was often the case in SMAC. I'll take Civ1 or Civ3 or CtP graphics happily, they were all clear. I want the graphics to clearly show which tile is which and which tile is what terrain. That's as far as my must-list goes. Other than that, I don't really care.

Excatly... er almost anyway. Couldn't stand the Civ I graphics...

	04-12-2004 04:53									#5
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I couldn't stand Civ2 graphics, as I had problems with the map perspective in its isometric view. Civ1 graphics were not really beautiful, but I never had problems telling my units apart.

	04-12-2004 05:02									#6
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

More realistic, I don´t want to play with a cartoon game... or at least like CtP2 or early Civ3.

	04-12-2004 05:15									#7
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I don't dislike the current graphics (yet), but if we had a clean sheet...

A Rome: Total War look would be good:







Or something along the lines of the newer Slitherine games: Gates of Troy/Spartan (though with more colour on the main map):



Gates of Troy City Graphics:





So basically fairly realistic and detailed buts still colourful (Civ3 had too much blue and green).

	04-12-2004 07:26									#8
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Solver As I've said before... I'll take anything as long as it's not downright ugly and making things indistuinguishable, as it was often the case in SMAC. I'll take Civ1 or Civ3 or CtP graphics happily, they were all clear. I want the graphics to clearly show which tile is which and which tile is what terrain. That's as far as my must-list goes. Other than that, I don't really care.

Same here, but I'd add that a spheric Earth starts to itch me...

	04-12-2004 09:14									#9
	Suffering from ads?

As I've said, I kinda like the embryonic Civ4 graphics.

My main issue is I think graphics better than Civ2 are a waste of system requirements. I see no point in animation. I want easy editability. I wouldn't mind a map like Civ1 or Colonization. I don't want realism, cartoony isn't too bad. I want the game to be kidfriendly, but I guess that doesn't mean I really want cartoony. I guess it should be fairly colorful. The maps posted in this thread and the embryonic Civ4 maps look good to me, but again I'd prefer they didn't feel the need for stuff that fancy.

To summarize, I'd prefer primitive, simple stuff, but the newer stuff I said I like looks good and I'll settle for it.

	04-12-2004 16:28									#10
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

The graphics as they are now are much better than I expected the final version graphics to be... or at least so far from what I could tell from the pictures
Though I wouldn't mind to have Civ1 graphics either, as long as the gameplay is great

	04-12-2004 18:22									#11
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: What Should Civ IV's Graphics Look Like?

What?? No poll!!!

I want some decent ( modern) graphics. Eye candy
RTW style

	04-12-2004 18:50									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Modern graphics = more system resources used. One of the things I love about Civ is that you can play it on lower-end computers. Civ3 runs pretty decently on a 300 MHz machine. At least it's playable. No, I'm not worried myself, if my machine can run games such as Doom3 or Half-Life2, I am sure it will run Civ4, but I will still be very happy if the system requirements turn out to be low.

	04-12-2004 19:15									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Solver Modern graphics = more system resources used. One of the things I love about Civ is that you can play it on lower-end computers. Civ3 runs pretty decently on a 300 MHz machine. At least it's playable. No, I'm not worried myself, if my machine can run games such as Doom3 or Half-Life2, I am sure it will run Civ4, but I will still be very happy if the system requirements turn out to be low.

I really don't mind cartoony graphics, I think that I'll get used to them with time, I just don't want monster graphics which consumes all system resources and makes scrolling, for instance, to be a pain in the butt.

	04-12-2004 19:25									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Solver Modern graphics = more system resources used. One of the things I love about Civ is that you can play it on lower-end computers. Civ3 runs pretty decently on a 300 MHz machine. At least it's playable. No, I'm not worried myself, if my machine can run games such as Doom3 or Half-Life2, I am sure it will run Civ4, but I will still be very happy if the system requirements turn out to be low.

What I meant by modern is, graphics better than Civ3.

Release is at least another year, I DON'T wont it to be able to run on a 300 MHz 'puter.

One thing 3D offeres though, is that you often can turn off 'fluff' to accomodate your personal preferences and your machines' preferences.

	04-12-2004 19:31									#15
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Indeed. 300 MHz systems are over 5 years old, it's a bit over the top to keep supporting that for Civ4. The people new PCs shouldn't have to suffer too much because of a few luddites. I think P3 would be a reasonable minimum requirement (that's also the minimum spec for Gates of Troy).

	04-12-2004 19:32									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

What was wrong with Civ3 graphics? The units were distinguishable, so great. They were perfectly functional graphics.

Why do Firaxis need to make it 3D anyway? Because everything is 3D now? Well, I'm fine with it as long as it's not a resource-hog that needs a 2GHz machine to run.

	04-12-2004 19:35									#17
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Solver What was wrong with Civ3 graphics? The units were distinguishable, so great. They were perfectly functional graphics.

Compare Civ3 graphics to the screenshots I posted above and tell me what right about them...

quote: Well, I'm fine with it as long as it's not a resource-hog that needs a 2GHz machine to run.

A lot of FPS and RTS games can do with half that much, I seriously doubt you'd have to have any worries for Civ4 in that regard...

	04-12-2004 20:13									#18
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Compare Civ3 graphics to the screenshots I posted above and tell me what right about them...

I'd take Civ3 graphics anyday. Each unit there looks different and I have no problem telling which tile is which and what's in each. Screenshots you posted have a lot of confusion for me, I can't tell which tile is which, and looks like units would need some time to get used to as well.

I am extremely poor in spatial orientation and 3D perception, so 3D maps are hard for me to perceive, it's a personal weakness of mine. Rome:Total War map is rather confusing to me.

	04-12-2004 20:14									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Let the graphics be whatever-- I can get used to them. There should be some way that the game runs smoothly (except between turns) on my old 900 MHz laptop. As long as that's possible, I'm happy.

	04-12-2004 20:30									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Solver quote: Compare Civ3 graphics to the screenshots I posted above and tell me what right about them... I'd take Civ3 graphics anyday. Each unit there looks different and I have no problem telling which tile is which and what's in each.

Not really, Civ3 has the exact same problem: I can never tell what units are on what tile, where one tile ends and another begins. Strategic resources sometimes impossible to find. It has both the most confusing and the ugliest graphics of any game I've ever seen (much more so than RTW or similar games). Well, at least as far as uglyness goes Civ2 comes pretty close...

	04-12-2004 20:37									#21
	Got spare money?

I can't honestly understand that complaint. Alright, strategic resources may be hard to find sometimes, but Civ3 map seemed very easy to understand to me, both as far as tiles and units go. I guess this is really individual - I could, for instance, never tell adjacent tiles in Civ2. So such map perception does appear to be individual.

As for ugliness, Civ3 graphics were cartoony, but not ugly. A tank looked like a tank - although a cartoony version of one. At least it wasn't Civ2 or SMAC where you couldn't understand what the heck is that thing on the screen.

	04-12-2004 20:47									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Solver As for ugliness, Civ3 graphics were cartoony, but not ugly. A tank looked like a tank - although a cartoony version of one. [quote]At least it wasn't Civ2 or SMAC where you couldn't understand what the heck is that thing on the screen.

For SMAC I agree, but Civ2 Are you mad? They were not even proper units, they were icons. Pretty hard not to be able to distinguish between those...

As for Civ3, those units were NOT cartoony. CtP graphics are cartoony. Civ3 units were indistinguishable blobs on the map. Only on low resolutions could you really see the difference between similar unit types.

	04-12-2004 21:05									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Well, Civ2 units were distinguishable as in it was usually possible to tell which unit is which unit type, but it didn't help at all if I could never tell if my unit is adjacent to the enemy one or not, that isometric view only gave me headaches.

Well, I am glad then that I played Civ3 on low res, as I usually do - never had any problems with units there. And how come CtP graphics are cartoony? A CtP tank looks like a tank, a Civ3 tank looks like a cute toy version of a tank.

	04-12-2004 21:15									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Well, I am glad then that I played Civ3 on low res

Well, some of us don't. It would be nice if we could play the game as well...

quote: And how come CtP graphics are cartoony? A CtP tank looks like a tank, a Civ3 tank looks like a cute toy version of a tank.

The Tank is a bad example, that does look more cartoony in Civ3 than in CtP. But any infantry, cavalry or future unit OTOH...

	04-12-2004 21:21									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Well, some of us don't. It would be nice if we could play the game as well...

You would better feel sorry for laptop users who couldn't play at 1024 that was the minimum requirement.

quote: The Tank is a bad example, that does look more cartoony in Civ3 than in CtP. But any infantry, cavalry or future unit OTOH...

No future units in Civ3... I think the CtP2 marines look more serious than Civ3 ones, same goes for planes, etc. The CtP2 bomber is a recognizeable B-52, and the Civ3 Bomber is what? A comic version of the German Gotha, or what?

	05-12-2004 03:20									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I think the most important part about Civ 4 graphics is that they are clearly distinguishable. Blending, and 3D shading are just fine, but there is an extent to which the graphics interfere with how you can manipulate the resources of your empire.

If a tile ends at one point, but you have the graphics in a way that it is not easily distinguishable, any planning on your part will be not a question of "go here, plant city", but of "Go here, define where the resources are, make sure you can identify the city placement square, place city".

The uniqueness of the graphics have to come hand in hand with being able to identify a course of action.

Remember, squigly roads may look nice, but you need to be able to see how the roads will improve your method of unit transportation.

This is a strategic game overall, not an art showcase.

	05-12-2004 05:29									#27
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Anything as long at it is hex-based

	06-12-2004 19:27									#28
	Support Apolyton

Civ 1 graphics were OK, though very simple. I had no problem with Civ 2 graphics either. SMAC was too dark and indistinguishable, I agree with that. I guess the new game will have a lot of blue and green too - heck, it's the colors of sea, grass and forest, of course there's a lot on our planet.
RTW looks good, but where are the tiles?

	06-12-2004 19:49									#29
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Civ2 graphics? No thanks...

	06-12-2004 21:33									#30
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: You would better feel sorry for laptop users who couldn't play at 1024 that was the minimum requirement.

My Toshiba's native resolution is 800x600, but I can still play Civ 3. Of course, when I set my screen at a higher resolution, the number of pixels on screen can't go up (after all, I'm stuck with the native 480 000 pixels). To solve this problem my laptop creates a virtual screen.