Civilization 4

[Sol Invictus]

So what? Eh? They have a lot of money, so you'd at least expect them to make the game look presentable. This is no nickle & dime operation.

 

[Sirus]

Most of the screens look fine to me anyway. I'm hopeing the other one was just an early release screenshot. Either way, it boils down to gameplay.

 

[Fez]

That still doesn't explain why they made the game 3D or why it had to be uglier than it was before.

 

[Naked_Lunch]

Because 3D is t3h 1337!!111!

 

[Sol Invictus]

3d for the sake of 3d. It looks like a pile of shit.

 

[Astromarine]

it's the same problem that crops up in every game that makes the same mistake: it is ESSENTIAL that, before you commit to a graphical technology in your game, you guarantee that you can make it look good using that technology. I know Ex is a graphics whore but in this case he's right. I'm hating those graphics as well, not because I think that the graphics matter more than the gameplay, but because it is a pure and simple waste of resources to implement a technology that you then fail to exploit. Damnit, give me GOOD 2D graphics or give me GOOD 3D graphics, and I'll be happy. It's all in being able to give a qualitative value to things which do not compare directly.

I can honestly say, in this case, that VD is doing a better job with the graphics of AoD than these guys are doing with Civ4. This just looks shoddy, no matter how many man-hours went into the engine.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Most of the screens look fine to me anyway. I'm hopeing the other one was just an early release screenshot. Either way, it boils down to gameplay.

Umm... I think the point is that being the 4th game in the series and all, we kind of know how the gameplay's going to go... Seriously, if Civ4 is nothing more than the same gameplay with shitty graphics, what's the point? The series has surely made enough money for them to progress beyond the graphical level of the original.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I can honestly say, in this case, that VD is doing a better job with the graphics of AoD than these guys are doing with Civ4. This just looks shoddy, no matter how many man-hours went into the engine.

Yay! Thanks for the kind words, Astro.

 

[Sirus]

Umm... I think the point is that being the 4th game in the series and all, we kind of know how the gameplay's going to go... Seriously, if Civ4 is nothing more than the same gameplay with shitty graphics, what's the point? The series has surely made enough money for them to progress beyond the graphical level of the original.

There are going to be new gameplay mechanics in it, such as religion. But like I said, from what I have seen, I think the game looks fine.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Doesn't look fine to most of us. We're talking about a game that runs on a 10 million dollar budget. Dude, games in Russia, made for 1/20th of that price, usually manage to look 10 times better. Take Cossacks 2 for example - not a great game, but it looks good, and they can render hundreds of units on screen at once without any slowdown. What's the excuse here?

 

[Sirus]

You tell me. If graphics really are that important to you, I really don't know what to say.

 

[Astromarine]

it's not GRAPHICS that are important, it's ART DIRECTION. This stupid mishmash of scales with poor models, no antialiasing, and boring boring boring scenes and units, coupled with a lack of UI to give some art to the page, makes it look like an independent game with 3D models made by the programmer's girlfriend. NOT the probably 5+ people art department. I would very very very seriously prefer to play the gameplay enhancements this game has on a straight graphical copy of the first one.

To mention a point of comparison: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/rom ... l?page=142

One year old, and oh God so much better it's sick.

I'm not saying the game is shit. I'm saying that if they are just now starting to do another pass on the UI and graphical cleanup, like they mentioned in the Gamespot preview, then they should have waited to post the screenshots until they did that, this is just counterproductive.

 

[keeks]

There's a fairly informative preview up at GameSpot.

Some cool stuff:

To give an example of just how serious Firaxis is, consider that you will no longer be able to transfer production from one project to another, a major exploit since time immemorial.

"The thing that is going to stick out the most to Civ vets is improvements and resources," Johnson said. "In previous Civ games, you only had a couple of options with what you could do with your land. In Civ IV, you get about 20 options, and a lot of them are specifically tied into resources and technologies. If you have some cows, you can build pastures on them, but only if you discover animal husbandry first. You can discover certain technologies that let you build windmills on a hill instead of a mine. There's a lot more options to do with your land."

This was always a problem in earlier Civ games though, as expansionism, or the rapid spread of cities, was pretty much the only way to go. Well, expansionism takes a big hit in Civ IV. "There was an obvious problem in Civ III, where it was always geared toward expansionism," said Barry Caudill, senior producer of Civ IV. "It felt like that it was basically the only way to play. The game is balanced now to have not as many cities. You can still spread your influence over a broad area, but not have as many cities, necessarily."

To counter the killer-stack problem, Firaxis has upped the effect of siege weapons, such as cannons, catapults, and artillery, by modifying them into stack killers. "They have a collateral damage effect, [so] that when you attack a stack, you will also hurt up to six other units in the stack."

The new government system in Civ IV, however, is going to allow a lot more flexibility than before. "Basically, it's a build-your-own-government," Briggs said. "We've broken down government aspects into a bunch of subcategories. There are five different categories and five or six possibilities in each category. And you pick one from column A, one from column B, one from column C. And by doing that you sort of put together your own government. You can have a communist government that has freedom of the press--one that is very oppressive on one hand but is very open on another hand. So it gives you flexibility on how you want to rule your empire."

But perhaps the most interesting new multiplayer mode is the pit boss, a persistent, stand-alone server that may be the answer that Firaxis is looking for. Basically, the pit boss will let you play a game of Civ online like normal. However, when someone has to leave (and usually someone has to leave over the course of a 10-hour game of Civ), the pit boss will save the state of the game. Then you can log in every now and then to see if your turn has come up. If it does, you can make your moves and save the progress to the server for the next player. This will keep a multiplayer game going, sort of like play-by-email. And when everyone is back online at the same time, you can resume the game at full speed.

 

[Saran]

I really like the build your own government idea, i wonder if you can decide how someone gets/earns the franchise.

If so, ill soon find out just how well Heinleins government model from the ST book works. :D

 

[Sovy Kurosei]

To give an example of just how serious Firaxis is, consider that you will no longer be able to transfer production from one project to another, a major exploit since time immemorial.

That isn't an exploit. Three turns before you complete a wonder, your opponent builds the Great Pyramid. Now you can't convert those lost production points to try and complete a new wonder before your opponents. Good game, Firaxis.

Able to build your own government as Firaxis prescribed? Done in SMAC. Able to not only build a variety of land (and sea!) improvements but stack one with another? Done in SMAC. Siege weapons being used as a stack killer? Done in SMAC.

Save myself some money and just boot up SMAC. Civilization 4 probably uses the same SMAC engine and that is why it is so fugly, hee, hee, hee.

Oh, and it looks like Firaxis is going to try a new flavour of corruption.

 

[Saran]

Able to build your own government as Firaxis prescribed? Done in SMAC. Able to not only build a variety of land (and sea!) improvements but stack one with another? Done in SMAC. Siege weapons being used as a stack killer? Done in SMAC.

But it looks like they are offering a greater degree of choice in how your government conducts itself, IIRC there were only two or three "traits" that you could change.(Government type, Economy, and i think there was something else but i cant remember it at the moment.)

Thats not to say that theres anything wrong with SMAC, Civ3 took a step backwards in comparison.

 

[Sovy Kurosei]

Saran:

Thats not to say that theres anything wrong with SMAC, Civ3 took a step backwards in comparison.

I agree. Civ3 should have built on the new ideas introduced in SMAC. Civ3 was a repackaged Civ2 with a new skin, tweaked diplomacy and superficial resource management. Civ4 is looking like it might be a repackaged SMAC. Civ4 might be a good game but I certainly wouldn't buy it on the first day and wait til the price gets chipped down some, unlike when I bought Civ3 with its 'kool kolonies' feature.

 

[littleboy]

the thing that really pisses me off about ALL the civ games is that your empire has no ecological constrats, want 3000 wooden ships, no problem just wait and build it. want to grow food for 4000 years on the same irrigated plot of land without any other advancements, go right ahead. want to grow your civlization to max pop. and keep it that way indefinaly without desase or famin to ever worry about, why not. the fact that almost every major civ has colapsed (excluding china) beacuse they came to the end of the resorces that where avaliable to them should be reflected in a game that porports to represent the whole of "civilization".

 

[Sovy Kurosei]

I don't think the game would be very fun if your civilization collapsed. However, I think that the resource management in Civ3 was superficial. Usually resources weren't a problem when you had a big nation. If you didn't have a big nation and didn't have resources land on your country, then I don't think you could afford them from other countries, I know luxury resources were expensive to import when I played through Civ3.

 

[littleboy]

I'm not talking about a colapse hardwired into your civilization, but you should have to manage your resorces effectivly. That means investing in the tech so you farming dosen't get exahsted, or washed away, that you have enough forests to build the town and go to war, that the oil won't run out before you get the space race victory. in civ 3 it was completely random when your resorces ran out and not something that you could accurately predict well in advance.

 

[Sovy Kurosei]

Makes sense, I agree with you. Maybe that will stop the not-so-great rapid expansionism that occurs in the Civilization series.

But I doubt Firaxis will pick up on that and instead try another flavour of that god awful corruption.

 

[Sol Invictus]

new screenshots at the teaser/official site.

This belongs in 2002

 

[Sol Invictus]

Scratch that. Whenever Europa 1400 was released, because that's what it fucking looks like.

Can you believe it? Europa 1400 actually looks better
http://www.frictionlessinsight.com/PC_R ... a1400A.jpg

 

[Sol Invictus]

I guess they're dumbing it down too


Greater Accessibility and Ease of Play - An easy-to-use interface will be immediately familiar to RTS and action game players, and newcomers to the series will be able to jump in and play.

Faster-Paced Fun - Gameplay has been streamlined for a tighter, faster and more compelling experience.

 

[Naked_Lunch]

Europa 1400 (Great game, btw) looks good because of the lighting and shadows. Those screenshots are definitely lacking in that department.

Bah, I'm not a big Civ fan to begin with so if it's bad it won't bother me that much.