 |
|
MarkG
|
|
Grand Lord of Apolyton, Owner of all this land as far as the eye can see
|
|
181# CHARACTERS / GRAPHICS
2 articles, 1 subject: civ3...
by Argentinot and TINOMan
Last edited by MarkG on 12-08-2001 at 01:08
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Laszlo
|
 |
Taipei, Taiwan
May 2000
time: 00:15
|
|
I think that some sort of labeling option should be allowed for units. It could be useful for instance, to have all your NONE units bearing a special marker (only to you, the owner - how's someone else to know how you support your armies?) to denote their special status. then you could remember to protect them more, or not waste an extra NONE settler on a city.
On the graphics issue though, I agree with RGE. The Civ 2 graphics, especially all the gray on the windows looks a bit dated. You need more land and city uniqueness, maybe even the damaged units will look different, or a staggered advance of city types so there can be big white shining cities, smaller brick-walled cities, then the real bqackcountry uses log cabins and stone walls for their towns.
But, as always, gameplay should come before graphics. And the graphics screenshots on civ3.com looked pretty spiffy - let's hope the gameplay is still better.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:15
|
|
I thought that TINOman contradicted himself in his article. He tells Firaxis not to worry about the graphics - they are not what makes a game great.
Heck, I agree with this. Balance, AI, and gameplay make a game fun which is all that matters to me in most cases.
But the problem with his statement is that graphics are very important. Yes may be not to me or not to him, but they were to his friends. Remember he points out that they said "Civ 2 sucks!" or whatever simply because the graphics look bad.
I have similar friends. A couple of which actually started interested in Civ III but soon grew uninterested in the game due to the early screen shots. These people will never play the game unless one of us physically forces them to simply due to the graphics. They expect games to look real before they give them a try.
So what does this mean?
Graphics are important. Without them, the series may stay great but there will not be new gamers and so the series will ultimately die. Civ III will be it if the game does not sell well and it will not sell well without decent graphics. I really think that TINOMan missed the mark on this column.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Todd Hawks
|
|
tniem,
You have some point there, but if you think about it, then you will get Civ3 with nice graphics and maybe not so good gameplay.
Then there will be a lot people buying the game.
Then Civ4 will be even better graphics and worse gameplay.
.....
And at the end you do have a lot of players and Civ won't "die", but it won't be the Civ that I (and you) liked to play.
I hope that we'll get decent graphics AND good gameplay. But if I had do take only one.....
Todd
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mech Assassin
|
 |
and a Finnish Assassin in Time.
Aug 2000
time: 07:15
|
|
The graphics matter for the masses. Not for retro gamers or hardcore strategists (strategy games (both, TB and RT) commonly give away in graphics). I still play UFO 1: Enemy Unknown, ivilization, Master of Orion, Master of Magic and such. The only thing that's outdated is graphics. Everything else is good. And I'd rather play those games than todays mass-market games with super graphics, but poor gameplay. Heck, if I want to see only good graphics, I go to see a movie. It's gameplay that makes a game. It's graphics, that makes the game to sell at mass-markets... Stupid, but true. I buy games for the game, not graphics, but not many seem to agree with me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dadacp
|
|
D-55129 Mainz, Germany
Apr 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
I agree completely about the graphics. Gameplay is much more important than graphics. Nowadays the game reviews rate the games to a large extent by the graphics and sound, and the game companies put out games with great graphics and sound, but not much else. When I hear that a strategy game has excellent graphics and sound, I get suspicious that maybe it doesn't have much depth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dadacp
|
|
D-55129 Mainz, Germany
Apr 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
I agree completely about the graphics. Gameplay is much more important than graphics. Nowadays the game reviews rate the games to a large extent by the graphics and sound, and the game companies put out games with great graphics and sound, but not much else. When I hear that a strategy game has excellent graphics and sound, I get suspicious that maybe it doesn't have much depth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Scrooge
|
 |
Europe ...err... mostly
Aug 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
I would like to comment on the "leaders" part.
I've seen a lot of discussions on the topic, since the Firaxis is thinking on implementing this feature.
----------
The concept of leaders is great fun, great fun indeed, ufff... The leaders could represent wonders of human kind. Almost same rules apply as for static wonders.
Leaders should not be historical (well, ok they may have some preset names which you could change in generic games, after all Newton was Newton, but just as well his name could be Oldton, then we'd have Oldton's Laws, you should get to name 'em leaders). Fixed names for scenarios perhaps.
This is how it could go:
> type of leader = example - prerequisite or trigger (to be worked out) - effect example
Military leaders would be of the most common kind and would stack with armies boosting some stat of your choice except movement - can't imagine a legion of Marathon runners (1-5 leaders max at any one time; 1 for every 10 cities)
> military leaders = GENERALS, COMMANDERS (like Patton, Nelson) - # of barracks, later adequate army, navy rating or aircraft rating (or just no. of units) - boost a stat
Civic leaders - (0-2 leaders max of the kind at any one time; you have to deserve them, 1 per 25 cities)
> scientific leaders = RESEARCHERS (like Newton, Einstein) - # of research facilities / scientists in city / "test tube" output - boost research, increase chance of early discovery
> economic = TYCOONS (like Rockefeller, help me) - # of economic facilities / bankers in city / "coin" output - boost coin output of one city further
> industrial = MOGULS ENGINEERS (like Stevenson, Ford) - # of industrial facilities / engineers in city / "shield" output - boost shield output of one city further
> cultural = ARTISTS (like Da Vinci, Elvis) - # of happy people / culture output - boost happiness or culture further of a city, quench revolts or civil disorder for 1trn, prevent migration, whatever you choose from available options
The exact prerequisites for the leader to "be born" have to be play-tested. To get the max 2 leaders of the same kind you have to be a nation strong in the corresponding field. Also, when a trigger is complete, for a couple of trns, there must be some growing chance (like n+10% per trn chance) for a leader to be born (so they don't spring up on automatic the next trn after I jiggle with the city's output).
Now when a leader "is born", you get a small "A Leader Is Born" window with Leader Name (preset but editable) and 2-3 leader stats (radio buttons), like what he does.
Military leaders this can be a >type of army: o land o sea o air (choices),
and what he does >boost: o attack rating o defense rating o morale.
Later perhaps even >favorite unit pull-down (like armour, so he could be your fav gen. Batton).
Civilian leaders exactly as above only sphere of influence is city of your choice and benefits civilian. This way you can send an engineer leader to a small undeveloped city to boost it's production and develop a factory faster; or you could send an artist to an unhappy city if you don't want to convert the locals into entertainers; or send an artist on a tour abroad for 5 trns to rise your standing with that nation. Feel free to explore the possibilities. Just close your eyes.
You can influence the leader's abilities because it's your education system that "breeds them". So you have to have schools, academies and univs or maybe a !NEW! war academy or naval school. Leaders have a random 10-25 turns finite lifespan (ancients have less) and can be killed by the enemy or taken over (bribe) or even if you're really bad, defect to the - hopefully better - neighboring nation. Leaders are like land units, that you can move from city to city freely and board transports. (the great naval commander Yammamoto got shot down in a transport plane)
If you really want to go crazy into leaders, add Great Leaders. These could represent historical figures, confirm the general leader rules as above, but have larger benefits, be way more "expensive" (prereqs) and be born only once per game and/or connect to advancements. Just like the new rules on wonders.
It's really that simple. Again most of the rules are already in place. Pushing my luck further, as I've mentioned in
#CivIII - Open-ended App thread the leaders' files could be plug-ins also. Full thread on leaders click here
Aha, I would leave out religious leaders, for this can be a sensitive issue and for political correctness. As I've said in a different thread about trading leaders, tell me, which nation would "build" Jesus (and perhaps send him on a tour)? 
THX for your attention. Sorry for spelling.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Todd Hawks
tniem,
You have some point there, but if you think about it, then you will get Civ3 with nice graphics and maybe not so good gameplay.
Then there will be a lot people buying the game.
Then Civ4 will be even better graphics and worse gameplay.
|
OK, I understand the concern of better graphics decreasing game play. I have grown up with it. The best games I played came back when you had to squint to even decipher what you were looking at. As graphics have improved, many developers have let graphics do their work for them and decreased game play.
But this is not always the case.
Black and White was not revolutionary because of the graphics (Sacrifice killed them and was still a good game) but because the AI was going to have an effect on the world. Blizzard games are highly addictive not because of their look but instead because the games are highly balanced and fun. The Sims was one of the best games in terms of gameplay in a long time. Games like Unreal, Max Payne, and Tribes 2 also boast great perspective graphics and are still a blast to play.
So all I am saying is game play is important. Graphics are important. Without either you hurt a game. Without decent graphics you lose prospective buyers and the game doesn't work with the interface. Meanwhile, without game play a game is just plain bad.
And all of the above games have incorporated cutting edge graphics and a great fun gameplay. So Firaxis should and I believe in a lot of cases has tried to do both.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Starlite
|
|
Melbourne, Australia
Jun 2001
time: 15:15
|
|
I don't like the idea of leaders (or heroes in certain early fantasy strategy games). I think it's because they force the player to form too strong an attachment to them, not being so willing to risk them and making the defence of borders far too dependent on the location of these leaders.
I also suspect that, apart from the constant (and, to me, somewhat irritating) cry of "historical accuracy" (inappropriate in this sort of game, IMO), the reason so many people seem so keen on leaders is a symptom of the cult of celebrity so frequently subscribed to in our society. It amazes me no end how many people honestly believe movie stars are better than them, how hard they find it to relate upon meeting a famous personage. This was most obvious with the insane dedication of so many fans to the Big Brother phenomenon (as I observed in its Australian incarnation).
Of course, I may be reading too much into it.  (I should have stuck with saying I don't like leaders.)
I like the anonymity of my units in Civ; personalities, I ascribe to my cities, not my units, and I think that's part of the attraction.
I also like being in complete control. Having my authority questioned by leaders, I find less desirable than even the frightening idea of a city revolting.
Anyway, that's my 2c.
Paulius
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mech Assassin
|
|
and a Finnish Assassin in Time.
Aug 2000
time: 07:15
|
|
I personally like the leader idea. The leaders are a good way to add some more complexity to the game without making it too difficult. Also, border defense isn't so hard, because the leaders aren't required to defend. They just upgrade the chances of success. With good road system behind your lines, you can quickly move the armies to where they're needed, while your standard border forces hold up the enemy. Also, I think, realism to a certain point fits to game. The thing is, that it must be used properly. It's all, how they do it, not what they do. Too many seem to think, that "if 4X TBS is realistic, it's bad". It's all on how the realism is implemented. If it's done correctly, it will make the game far better. And, with rule-customization chances, like in Civ II, you can always toggle the rules on or off, depending on your likings.
About the artist thing, they need to concentrate on something. They have limited budget (the payers decide) and limited timeframe. That's what drives them and forces them to concentrate. If they hire many good artists to get good graphics in time, they can't hire enough good programmers to get good AI in time. Now, most go for the graphics, because that brings the masses to buy the game. I think, they should go more on AI.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shteven
|
|
MD, USA
Apr 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
i like the idea of leaders, i think they add a interesting twist to the game. however i hope they don't interfere with the gameplay too much. (which i don't think they would do).
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2001 00:04
)
)
|