27-01-2001 11:00									#1
	What's wrong with you people?!? Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I seem to notice alot of talk about a improved graphics engine. Like someone said in the post about Multiplayer only civ3 that they would have more time to develop a graphics engine. That is the last thing you want!! CTP!! RED ALERT 2, all AOE games!! Better graphics maybe, but terrible, repeptitive games. I could live with TOT level graphics and be completely content. Plus, some of us do not have 700mhz processors!! Graphics don't make the game, gameplay and balance does. I just had to vent my anger!!

	27-01-2001 12:28									#2
	Inflate your Upload Space

Calm down dude! If Civ3 had Civ2 type graphics I'd be disappointed. Nice graphics aren't always the bringer of bad game. For example play Deus Ex or Baldur's Gate II.

I'm very happy with the new graphics, they look amazing!

	27-01-2001 17:09									#3
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I agree with JDI, graphics beyond what civ 2 has are next to useless. After the initial "wow" you end up turning of animation, wonder movies etc, to speed up the game. To fancy graphics just clutter up the game.

	27-01-2001 18:19									#4
	Got spare money?

I'd like better graphics, but not 3d animated ones, those ones annoy me, especially when the units talk. Maybe consentrate on better looking/merging tile squares, a more 3d feel to the environment, more types of tile, etc . . . .

	27-01-2001 19:00									#5
	Suffering from ads?

You all live in the 20th century, dudes. A game released without good graphics in late 2002 will be the laughing stock of the market. I for one would not buy it.

	27-01-2001 19:35									#6
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Why is this a zero-sum topic to some people?

	27-01-2001 20:55									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

yin26, my thoughts exactly!

	28-01-2001 12:15									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Actually there are enough 'graphics games' that really suck!
PLAYABILITY, SMOOTHNESS and FUN are what we want.
That Civ2 could still makes some sales now makes clear my point.

	28-01-2001 14:24									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Suggested Civ-3 feature-additions shouldnt be zero-sum topics - but, on the other hand: they shouldnt be "the more the merrier" topics either. Believe it or not; there are practical limits in how much Firaxis can squeeze into the game; how much the average civ-player can digest - and, not least important: how much the expected recommended (not minimum) PC-configuration demands of max 500 MHZ, actually can handle.

Many TBS players just dont buy new computers every 12-18 month, like perhaps (some) Action-gamers do.
Check out Poll: Whats your system spec?.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 28, 2001).]

	28-01-2001 17:48									#10
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

LOL..This is amazing....WHY.....oh WHY does 'good graphics' say 'bad gameplay'?

ROFLMAO

sarcasm
OH NOOOOOOOOOOOO The game has good graphics!! THAT MEANS.....that the team are only focusing on the graphics! ARGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sarcasm

	29-01-2001 01:21									#13
	Support Apolyton

The problem isnt "great graphics" in Civ-3 - why should it be? The problem is instead any attempt in turning Civ-3 into some kind of 3D game. Im not thinking so much on animated units. That can be optional.
What im aiming at here is foolish ideas about Populous-style 3D globe-maps; maps with several 3D map-layers on top of each other (allowing u-boats passing "underneath" surface-ships, and so on). Ideas about an optional ability to "see the map from the units point of view" ala Theme Park (I dont know if the latter ever have been suggested, but if it has - I wouldnt be that surprised).
The bottom line is that this kind of 3D-dreams is so totally misplaced in a TBS-style game like Civ-3. It doesnt add anything to the important just-one-more-turn factor. So why waste time in continuing discussing it?

As for "good graphics"; I expect razor-sharp 768 x 1024 (or higher) 32-bit graphics (if really needed. Anyway 16-bit low-res alternatives is also available) and optional unit- and tile-animations. Isnt this enough?

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 28, 2001).]

	30-01-2001 21:47									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Populous-style 3D globe maps is not a foolish idea! It's unnecessary though. But what about using UFO/XCOM style 3D globe maps?
Also several 3D map-layers are not needed. Even in old Panzer General planes could move to the same hex as enemy ground units, or at least pass through it, if I remember correctly.

Firaxis puts a lot of effort to make wonderful graphics for Civ3, but they still have promised to keep the oldie style units etc. as an option for scenarios and such. It will work, if it doesn't, then they'll patch it. Civ3 simply won't sell without good graphics. Of course there are good games without graphics, Nethack and other roguelike games for example, but they're freely downloadable.

	30-01-2001 21:53									#16
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I totally agree with Ralf. Firaxis itself has stated that optional civ II level graphics will also be awailable, but the default grafics will be animated, etc. Hence graphics should not be problematic for anybody.

As to attempts to turn Civ III into a 3D game, I cannot picture how it could possibly work. I hope no multi-layered globes are implemented, since it would simply be too confusing to play on them. I cannot imagine trying to find a submarine by rotating a globe and switching between various undersea layers at the same time. The current map system should be kept, though there ought to be a greater variety of terrain types.

	30-01-2001 23:55									#19
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I think it is extremely silly to have animated units and terrain.

Animated terrain simply wastes and possibly hogs computer resources while adding mainly eye strain and perhaps some entertaining for the "simple" people .

Animated units? Since when do in Civ my elephant actually walks? Since when do I actually have an elephant instead of a generic unit representing a standard battalion of elephants in a size suited for taking on other units' battalions? Remember, in Civ I we had a square representing a unit and a square representing a city and were just fine!

Why do we have to strive for the great looks of a RTS game? This simplifies and stupidifies things, as concepts of a civ-like TBS game are stripped out of the game and abused. Soon there would come a fool that would say he won't play chess unless the units are similar to the actual things they represent. He will claim that it's year 2001 and chess should modernize to meet the standarts. Would that make that man right? No.

I'm not of the people who claim they could play civ if it were text-driven. I wouldn't. But I would be able to play it with squares and circles instead of citis and units. Remember where civ comes from - the strategical map or board with symbolic units on it.

This method has been used by strategists for centuries. I'm sure that if they would show each and every unit for what it actually was, it would only give the strategists a head-ache.

And we all know all the nice effects are turned off to speed up game, free computer resources and improve visibility.

	31-01-2001 01:14									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I don't have any problem with animated units.

But animated terrain, animated "special resources," and unnecessary animation in the City View or in the user interface will probably just piss me off. What a waste. And for what?

	31-01-2001 05:42									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

EnochF, in other words: Too much of a good thing gone bad? I understand

	31-01-2001 07:18									#22
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Hey, I have an idea ...

Instead of the usual units ... let's have X's and O's just like in Tic Tac Toe! The human player can be the X's and the PC can be the O's. Of course, the O's will be different colors to represent the different civs ... ;-)

	31-01-2001 08:17									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Don't take offence, but a lot of this thread sounds like knee-jerk anti-RTS reactions. Movement and improved graphics are a good thing if they lead to a cleaner interface with better information density that doesn't slow down the game.

There is nothing wrong with unit animations as long as they don't needlessly slow down the game. We've got movement animation now (incredibly bad clunky animation). All unit animations mean is that your settler will walk along the route you've chosen instead of bump along like some South Park character. As long as I can speed up how long it takes him/her to get there, I'll be happy no matter if s/he walks, dances or cartwheels down the path.

Combat animation is a slightly different story - I don't mind if (a) it gives me some information and (b) once I've figured out that info I can turn it off if I want. I think most people probably go with fast combat resolution in SMAC after a few games merely because the only information that can be gleaned from watching the combat is how much damage one unit can do to the other (which allows you to do a rough calculation as to how many units you should throw at the enemy next turn). Since that info is basically available from the terrain and the other unit's icon and morale flag, after a while combat is not worth watching.

As for terrain/city animation, I agree that eye-candy like bubbling volcanoes, or pounding surf would just be a needless distraction (the screens are bad enough when you've got thirty units moving through a heavily populated area). But there is nothing wrong with terrain animation that conveys information. Anything that reduces the number of pop-ups is good with me. For example, a long series of WLT_D windows in CivII can be avoided with just having the city flash briefly and have some icon float above it (a waving flag, a crown, whatever).

The best reason to have movement on the map is that there is only so much info you can pack into shape and colour before the map starts looking like something by Jackson Pollock. A little movement to convey info, if it keeps the interface clean, is not a bad thing.

Of course, the worst case scenario is if CivIII comes out looking like Heroes of Might and Magic (is that the name?) - you know - the game with the cheesy cartoon scenery, the horrid faux opera sound track, and the bubbling volcanoes and pounding surf ... Uggh.

------------------
Echinda
"That which does not kill you ... will likely try harder the next time."

	31-01-2001 12:01									#24
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

repeptitive? Been watching Jorge W. B. speeches a bit much lately?

---AND just so y'all know: I am not a Democrat poking fun. I voted for Bush. But he couldn't talk his way outtava paper bag.

	31-01-2001 18:59									#25
	Got spare money?

Excellent graphics are not the number one priority of Apolyton readers because we are almost all dyed in the wool Civ fans who have been playing these games for years. For Firaxis, who will hope to attract entirely new gamers to the genre, they are more essential. Some players will be drawn in by a good looking game that gets good reviews (where look can be as important as feel) and only subsequently be hooked by the quality of the gameplay. If gameplay was the only important aspect then chessboards would still be outselling game consoles.

The game absolutrely must convey its key information to the player crisply, cleanly and quickly. How much additional eye-candy they can add on to to make the information more pleasant and less repetitious is up to their ingenuity. If the same guys are responsible for AI and graphics it will be amazing. While the AI guru's are doing the vital job of making the game play brilliantly, I hope the graphics wizards will be adding in all the subtle touches like empire history replays, palace construction and city views. They don't matter a fig in timed turn multiplayer matches but all help generate broad and lasting appeal in a way that a bare bones boardgame never could.

	31-01-2001 23:01									#26
	Full PM-box? Change here!

animated units make it a whole lot harder not just for the development team but also people writing mods which ususally requires the creation of new units.

going for high-res graphics is a good idea though. This adds memory load but machine capacity has improved somewhat since civ2 (a factor of 4 at least). The job of the artist making the unit graphic is possibly made easier though - one of the tricks use to be getting a recognisable image in those limited number of pixels.

	01-02-2001 00:25									#27
	Inflate your Upload Space

I have to agree with Echina on this, as much as I hate to say it, but the unit/combat animation/model from CTP(2) is nice & pretty!

You can keep everything else except the Wonder Movies.
('cos I'm probably the only one who liked the High Council and Heralds)

	02-02-2001 21:55									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

They have confirmed that the game will support unanimated units for mod-makers so it would be surprising if their own animations could not be switched off.

Perhaps for the real grognards they will support flat maps and standard military symbols on the counters. Look! Its an oval-in-square 8-6-4. It must be the 1st Armoured Division
[This message has been edited by Grumbold (edited February 02, 2001).]