 |
|
|
Why do you hate the roads Yin?
|
|
| |
|
|
Ralf
|
 |
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yin26
Well, actually, we all seem to agree that the mountain/road combo could use some work. |
Both the mountain/road- and mountain/River combo looks horrible. Why must roads go directly over the peaks? Its better if they meander near the mountain-bases, instead.
quote:
It looks like somebody just took a brown marker and went nuts. [...] It just looks messy. |
Polypheus had some viewpoints about it in his thread called Infinite Road & Railroad Sprawl. The road/railroad-sprawl phenomenon lays in the fact that building roads and railroads on every improved tile is ONLY beneficial. It shoudnt be. It should be a mixed blessing:
No roads through irrigated tiles means that the max increased food-output can be maintained. Building roads through irrigated tiles means only half food-increase, but you get instead the increased trade-benefit.
Railroads should now ONLY boost shield-output from mined hills & special resource-tiles.
No benefits on other tile-types; neither trade, food or shield ones. The increased movement-benefit is worthwhile enough in order to encourage the player to RR-connect all his cities, plus perhaps adding some strategical shortcuts & RR-knots as well, for more effective war mobilisations and more secure domestic resource-trade. Once ALL of your cities have been RR-connected you perhaps get some reward or trade-bonus as well.
Last edited by Ralf on 12-07-2001 at 10:24
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Zanzin
|
 |
Sydney, Australia
Mar 2001
time: 15:14
|
|
WHAT IM NOT HAPPY ABOUT -
i) Echoing the sentiments of others here.....the roads over the mountains look absolutely stupid. The should wind around.
Also, roads that go "behind" mountains don't....they too are pasted over the top of the peak, which looks so rediculous its pathetic, and makes you wonder if Firaxis really do have monkeys working in the art department.
ii) Where's the farmland? Is the irrigation tiles that make the continent look flooded all wer're going to get?
iii) Hmm....the entire ocean is exactly 3 feet deep...seriously, it looks like a kiddy's pool.
iv) The mountains - they're all red at the peak (maybe these are graphic assets left over from AC that Firaxis thought they'd recycle just for in-jokes), and most of them pop up out of nowhere....at the very least, they should be surrounded by foothills on most sides, right?
v) As someone mentioned in a different thread, all we seem to have is a reflection of southern-california and mediteranian type terrain.....what about the rest of the world?
vi) If I don't see any Himalya mountain ranges and what not, I'm going to be very perplexed. Has noone from Firaxis ever been skiing...or do they think the world begins and ends in Hunt Valley?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wotan321
|
 |
Nowheresville, Man
May 2001
time: 00:14
|
|
I hope I don't offend anyone.... but after all the *****ing about "no updates, Firaxis hates us, the web-master is a bum", we finally get some more info. And massive amounts of complaining begins.
The game is not finished, but WOW! It is impressive, and a HUGE improvement from Civ2. The graphics may not be as bright and perky as other games, but they all fit together and they look good. I look forward to seeing the graphics in the game, as opposed to screen-shots of the game, perhaps some resolution was lost in transition.
The gameplay issues described in the PC Zone article really sound fantastic, and that's the real issue. Diplomacy, trade, culture and combat need to be right, the graphics we can edit if we want to. I was very glad to get more information, and I hope it is released in October.
Firaxis is doing a great job on this one.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LaRusso
|
 |
appendix of Europe
May 2001
time: 06:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by wotan321
I hope I don't offend anyone.... but after all the *****ing about "no updates, Firaxis hates us, the web-master is a bum", we finally get some more info. And massive amounts of complaining begins.
The game is not finished, but WOW! It is impressive, and a HUGE improvement from Civ2. The graphics may not be as bright and perky as other games, but they all fit together and they look good. I look forward to seeing the graphics in the game, as opposed to screen-shots of the game, perhaps some resolution was lost in transition.
The gameplay issues described in the PC Zone article really sound fantastic, and that's the real issue. Diplomacy, trade, culture and combat need to be right, the graphics we can edit if we want to. I was very glad to get more information, and I hope it is released in October.
Firaxis is doing a great job on this one. |
Dear Wotan,
Can you really look at the pictures and say that you see screens of the game you will like to look at. We all used to play pong and space invaders but it's 2001, game has been 2 years in development and I guess it's time to move on.
True, screenshots at official site have nicer colour gama. Not much, though. It really looks flat and unsaturated.
As for our complaining - this is not a real, official update. That aside, why oh why was it a problem to add these couple of pathetic screens to the official (and soon to be defunct) civ 3 site at firaxis. why did we have to have snapcase dig it out of nowhere? this is the kind of stuff that really should appear first on the official site.
Back to graphics. Cities look bleak, it is very hard to make out the terrain type. I guess those glowing green things are the fertility symbols and the white dots next to them might be quarries (that is, former shields).
Roads look like varricose veins.
I really want October release, I really like Civ, I really respect whatever work they have put but I really do hope that these are some leftover alpha screens.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-07-2001 02:45
Well, I hate to agree with agreeing with me, but the first time I saw SMAC I thought: "Hmmm, 3D terrain. Interesting step forward. But the colors!" Now I find myself thinking with Civ 3: "Hmmm, NO 3D terrain. Also interesting, though a step back? But the colors!" It's dejavu, I'm tellin' ya....
? Well, the road thing is something that needs work, the rivers and some others too, but it looks much more better then CtP2, in my opinion. You may find CtP2 looking better. 
|
|