 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Jarouik
|
 |
Helsinki, Finland, EU
Dec 2000 time: 07:12
|
|
Surely, graphics don't mean much when it comes to gameplay, but they still add an atmosphere to the game that hopefully keeps anyone trying out the game hooked long enough to get hopelessly addicted, and in addition they are something you can nostalgize about in the years to come - I still remember the palace in the original Civilization, as well as the leaders' faces, rather useless graphics though they were. I believe there are many great games, strategy in particular, that I have never gotten to know well enough to start liking them because of the looks of the game - if it has a complex and clinical interface that looks about as fun and intriguing as a spreadsheet, the atmosphere is so lacking that I doubt I could be interested in the game long enough to start appreciating whatever superb gameplay features it might have. Heroes 3 was and is indeed great in this respect - the town graphics were very beatiful, and the musical backgrounds fit them well.
However, regarding Technophile's fear that graphics are the most important improvement between Civ II and III, I certainly doubt that. They are the most visible one, the one that you can see from the screenshots, the one that previews aimed at the public at large, like Gamespy's report, will emphasize, the one that is required for the game to be marketable in the first place, but I am certain that anyone who has played Civilization long enough will find that all the numerous changes and brand new features in the gameplay are by far the most important thing in Civ III; improving graphics certainly does not exclude improving the game as well, which is what recent information from Firaxis proves, since they seem intent on creating an improved game that would please Civilization fans and novices alike, not just something that looks like Civilization and is pretty (Call to Power springs to mind, although I've only played CtP 2 and haven't finished a single game, since it took so long I got bored, so I have no more specific views of my own on the game...).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Gammaray fan
|
|
OOPS... DOUBLE POST!
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
godot
|
|
Canoga Park, CA, USA
May 2001 time: 05:12
|
|
Personally, I have had (almost) as much fun playing older games that were deep and involving but used character-based graphics as modern-day games.
Of course graphics are nice, but how many times have you seen a game that looked GREAT but the gameplay mechanics were so poor it wasn't worth playing.
One comment about the graphics being too light or, as someone put it, "washed out"; I would rather have the background terrain be LESS striking so that I can more easily pick out my units and other objects that may be of more immediate interest and possibly more immediate danger.
Face it, the games can get pretty cluttered once they get rolling. A reviewer of Age of Empires II on StrategyFirst said, "Age of Kings can look a little bland and washed out before you fill the screen with buildings and military units, but this same sparseness makes its interface clean and effective." And that's all I have to say about that.
SCROLLING LISTS: Few things are more distracting from gameplay that having to position the mouse on a little arrow and click once, twice (dang I should have clicked on the scrollbar!) just to see information that should be visible with a simple glance.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Frugal_Gourmet
|
|
New York City, NY, USA
Jan 1970 time: 00:12
|
|
Is it just my imagination, or is this not the 6,819,203rd time this exact same thread w/ all the same issues/arguments has taken place?
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12. Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|