Civilization 4

[Otaku_Hanzo]

fo sho m'nizzle

dat shizzle be f'rizzle, biotch

Greetz

 

[Sol Invictus]

yo wadup foos

sid maier sux teh shitz. moo cow 3 4 lief homeboy

fo sho, dawg

yea yea

greetz

 

[Seven]

So which one of you was the eldestgoat? :wink:

 

[Sol Invictus]

Damn. Civilization 4 looks bad

It doesn't get any more colorful than that. God damn. Why can't they just make a game that has the artistic quality of Disciples 2?

 

[dojoteef]

Exitium you post the worst pictures possible and then say Civilization looks bad. Those look like low resolution scans from a print magazine that have been blown up quite considerably. Just about any game would look bad under those circumstances.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

They're taken from the latest PC Gamer magazine and are at least 4 times the size they are in the magazine. Looks better when actual size. There was a site that had high rez versions of them posted, but PC Gamer made them take 'em down until their magazine had circulated a bit, or something like that.

 

[Fez]

I don't think it is the qualiity of the picture that is the problem, more that the game looks like "Civ meets toon town". All it needs is some generic cel-shading. I'll give it a chance, it is still early days and the screen shot won't show it at it's best. Though the Civ games never had much going for them artwise really.

 

[Greenskin13]

Their eyes were watching dogs.

Fez is right about the toony feel. That font with the warrior looks like Comic Sans! Geez, I hope they change that before the release.

 

[Sol Invictus]

I'm afraid that the game is going to look like Pirates!'s turn based combat invasion mode, with the bands of pirates/soldiers/whatever instead of a single unit. They all look hella cartoony, too.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Well, something you have to take into account, is how that all looks at a decent resolution. Plus, there's the fact that Civ 4 is supposedly going to be hella mod friendly. I could care less if the graphics look cartoony, as long as the gameplay is deep and rich. Like orgasmic eye-candy matters anyways.

 

[Sol Invictus]

It looks like Pirates! without the ships. It's got that same 'happy fun time cartoon' feeling about it. It's the same damn engine.

I don't understand why you like to rag on good graphics.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

First off, I rather enjoy the graphics for Pirates!. It's a great game and the graphics fit.

Second off, I don't "rag" on good graphics and never have. What I rag on is when developers waste their time making something that's going to be ultra pretty and beat out the competition and then go "oooops! looks like we forgot the gameplay! oh well, shove it out the door anyways coz it shur is purty to look at!".

That's what I rag on.

 

[Seven]

Since we're on the subject, who wants them to make SMAC 2, except called "Civ4"?

 

[Sol Invictus]

What happens when a game looks like crap and plays comparable to what its graphics look like? Honestly, I don't understand why people think a good game deserves bad graphics or why graphics detract from the development of gameplay related elements. If anything, they only enhance the immersion. It isn't the other way around.

You don't pay artists to write the game, and you don't pay programmers to do the graphics. Why you think good graphics would detract from a good game or 'waste time' is beyond my reckoning. With today's good graphics cards I'd rather not play a game that looks like it was made 5 years ago.

Can you honestly name a new strategy game with top-notch graphics with zero gameplay? I fucking doubt it. Bad games both look, and play horribly. Rome: Total War looks great and plays just as well, so there goes your stupid argument right out of the fucking window.

In fact if Fallout looked like Wasteland we wouldn't even be here talking about it. If TOEE shared the looks and animations of Pool of Radience 2 we wouldn't had given it much of a chance, either. Evil Genius and No One Lives Forever be accoladed if they didn't have the artistic style as they do, either. Diablo would never have been such an intense dungeon crawler with a high immersion factor if it wasn't for its graphics, sound and music, either. Which brings up another point: why do so many developers think that skimping on sound and music is a good idea?

Ever try watching a movie with the sound off? No amount of visual effects would save that. Likewise, nobody would care to watch a movie with a shakycam and cheap ass CGI that looks like it came straight out of an 80s TV ad, either. No matter how good the plot, or the actors. It'd just look cheap, and that reflects on the product as a whole.

Do you know what most people do when they're looking for new games? They take a look at the screenshot and if their reaction to that screenshot is, "It looks like crap", there's a 90% chance that they wouldn't even bother to look any further. You can accuse them of being shallow, or even idiotic if you please, but this is the reality. I don't fucking care if the game is the Holy Grail of games. Not if it looks like shit.

Speaking of which, I had a nice chance to try that Maximus XV Abraham Strong Space Retard game and what can I say? It looks like shit, sounds like shit, and plays like shit.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

First off, I haven't had any reason to rag on any games lately due to this issue with the exception of HL2, but I'm not going to go into that again. It's a great game, but the fanboys are likening it to god and that's just bullshit.

Second off, the main reason for my ragging on graphics whores is because they tend to go "DUDE! YOU GOTTA PLAY THIS GAME!! THE GRAPHICS WILL MAKE YOU CUM!!!" and that's all they care about. The gameplay is lost to them because they wanna wank off to the next best thing in virtual titties or something.

Also, because of this graphics standard today, alot of classic titles don't even get second glances from the youth of today because all they want are shapelier asses or complex shading on the titties. And it's because of this I can't stop thinking how someday we are going to lose gameplay just so everyone can wander around and fondle virtual breasts and watch the shadows realistically move over them. So I campaign now and then to remind people what video games are all about. Is it hurting you? Obviously not since you haven't tried to sue me for it.

Sure, have them big ole' titties that wiggle and shake while the shadows play realistically across them. I don't care. Just so long as that's not the sole purpose of your graphics engine and there's actually gameplay hidden in there somewhere that's semi-decent.

Rome: Total War looks great and plays just as well, so there goes your stupid argument right out of the fucking window.

Not really. Sure the game plays well. But Empires Of The Sun has it beat hands down in gameplay and it looks like shit compared to Rome: Total War. Now look at Darklands. One of the best CRPGs ever made. Way better than Bloodlines in gameplay and depth, but graphically inferior for sure. My argument is nowhere near the fucking window.

 

[Circuitbreaker]

Since we're on the subject, who wants them to make SMAC 2, except called "Civ4"?

I would definitely favor SMAC 2 over Civ 4.

It would be a mighty challenge though as SMAC didn't have any real glitches, mistakes or problems. So they would really have to come up with some fresh ideas, to make SMAC2 work.

 

[Araanor]

Since we're on the subject, who wants them to make SMAC 2, except called "Civ4"?

I certainly wouldn't want Firaxis to make SMAC2, since Brian Reynolds and a couple other guys left them after they made the original. Reynolds was the lead designer of SMAC and Civ2. It's a shame they just went and made another RTS (Rise of Nations) after that.

 

[triCritical]

* No more spearmen defeating tanks.

Thats bull shit. Iran-Iraq war anyone. Sometimes inept nations can lose a battle with a tank to just about any opponent. I want this rule changed!!!!

 

[triCritical]

Dude there is no way to tell how the graphics are going to look from pre-beta low res scans that don't even look good for games like HL2. And Pirates style graphics for Civ4 would be a hell of a step up from the broken record graphics of Civ3.

 

[PennyAnte]

IIRC, no spearmen beating tanks was a promise made for Civ 3, and it's being promised again. I wouldn't worry about warfare being "fixed" or "broken" depending on your perspective. Like all Civ games, the warfare won't entirely please anybody.

All the usual complaints will rear their ugly heads. Where's attrition damage? Why isn't there a logistics train for armies? Why are units still using a simple attack-defense-move statistic? Why isn't each battle more tactical when even HOMM and AoW have battle maps? There's also the old favorite - when is this game going to be played on a globe? Has Sid addressed that yet?

So fear not. You will enjoy many long hours hating this game.

 

[triCritical]

All the usual complaints will rear their ugly heads. Where's attrition damage? Why isn't there a logistics train for armies? Why are units still using a simple attack-defense-move statistic? Why isn't each battle more tactical when even HOMM and AoW have battle maps? There's also the old favorite - when is this game going to be played on a globe? Has Sid addressed that yet?

I actually don't mind the lack of tactics in Civ games. For the main reason that the tactics that Civ3 has, and that Pirates have shown in sufficient, at least IMO, for a empire/state building game. The bottomline is that there is weak tactics in the Civ games. For instance, don't attack accros a river, or jungle, try to defend on hills and mountains, have counter attacks ready for weakened units, use artillary right and don't let your weakened units get counter attacks by providing a defensive unit protect them. All this while not very tactical, still amounts to more then what games like HoMM offer.

And all of this also exist in Pirates but more. For instance, if you are in a forest, or jungle, that will provide cover against projectiles. And the best part of all is if the flanking in Pirates is in Civ4, then it will have all the tactics a game like Civ ever would need.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Pirates is a boring piece of shit that gets tiresome after a few days of the same old spunk. Civilization 4 needs to have a whole lot more going for it than 'cartoonish 3d graphics'. The whole game just feels basically pointless.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Pirates is a boring piece of shit that gets tiresome after a few days of the same old spunk.

And we all know that if YOU say it's so, then it's so.

That's why I'm still playing it after two weeks. The game is what you make of it. Simple as that. And I agree with Tri, land combat from Pirates would work well with the Civ series.

I'm curious, did you even dive into the game, Rex? Or did you encounter Raymondo for the third time and give up?

Play in 1600 and ally yourself with no one. Piss everyone off, only leaving yourself with Pirate Havens to replenish crew. Sack a town, give it to England. Sack it again a month later and give it to Spain. Take out invasion forces from all sides and send Pirate raiders after everyone. Make the indians attack everyone. Screw the main quests. Have a blast and roleplay. There are so many options as far as that's concerned. And soon, there will be alot more once Chronowerx's mod comes out. A whole lot more.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Yeah. Encountered Raymondo more times than I'd like to remember. Does it get any better than that?

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Does it get any better than that?

That depends. Like I said, you don't HAVE to do the quests. Hell, I spent an entire career running around acting like a true pirate and the only quests I did perform were the pirate treasures and taking out the pirates. Sure my fame sucked in the end, but who gives a shit? I had a blast. It truly is an open-ended game. It just doesn't reward you as much in the end if you go off and do your own thing (and I mean reward as in ending, not satisfaction).

There's a crew working on modding the game right now and they've done alot already. They are going to implement other ways of gaining fame and also being able to claim towns for the pirates as well as TONS of other things. Sure Sid could have done better than he did, but he also wanted to appeal to a much wider audience and not just fans of the original. He did succeed in that endeavour and, while some people have complained about the repetitiveness of the game, alot more people have praised it.

Even I remarked on things I felt they should have done, but didn't. I personally want to see support for merchant traders. While you can trade to earn money, there is absolutely no other gain beyond that of the monetary persuasion to be found in the endeavour. You don't make enough money to keep your crew happy enough for awhile and either eventually have to resort to acts of piracy or do other things to keep the money coming in so the crew don't mutiny.

I would love to see the ability to invest money into ports, raising their value that way and earning you fame. Maybe be able to own taverns in various ports, supplying them as needed and raking in the money they make. And I would absolutely love to be able to make settlements as well as improve settlements enough that they become full blown ports. From what I understand though, that last part is being implemented by the modders as well.

So, yes, I agree the game has shortcomings and could have been better. But if you approach it in ways other than intended, you just might find alot more replay value than you thought. Just don't expect to end up becoming a governor if you stray from the main quests. If you could care less about that, then abuse the game for all it's worth and have a blast.