NEWS: "CIV IV: COLONIZATION" this fall

[Barbader]

New civilization will be standalone and CIV IV engine based:

http://www.actiontrip.com/rei/comments_ ... d=060908_9
http://www.worthplaying.com/article.php?sid=52828
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_i ... tory=18950


I only hope that Firaxis put new features too.

 

[dagorkan]

I still can't see why the Civ 4 engine is so ideal. Colonization is a different game and superior in several ways.

 

[Trash]

Well, if only because the graphics could use an overhaul?

 

[dagorkan]

3D Colonization will look just as stupid as 3D Civ 4. Those games are supposed to be board games resources are squares that you only need to see the geometric grid. Why the fuck would anyone want to zoom and pan a civ game?

 

[Barbader]

and the music of the first one was insuperable:
http://www.mirsoft.info/wogm_download.p ... EwMDU1NTt9
112kb of MIDI gloriousness

 

[Trash]

3D Colonization will look just as stupid as 3D Civ 4. Those games are supposed to be board games resources are squares that you only need to see the geometric grid. Why the fuck would anyone want to zoom and pan a civ game?

Because it looks nice?

 

[Elwro]

It looks nice. It'd still be great in ASCII or on 1980-style hex grid because it's just a very well designed title, but there's nothing wrong with some visual candy since in this case it is unobtrusive and doesn't detract from the game.

 

[Jasede]

I just wish it were optional. Civ 4 already is the limit my hardware can endure.

They should make a 320x240 version that runs under MS DOS for me.

 

[Raapys]

Personally i play so far zoomed out that it doesn't even look any nice anyway. Waste of good $, and it also limits their customer base.

 

[JarlFrank]

Personally i play so far zoomed out that it doesn't even look any nice anyway. Waste of good $, and it also limits their customer base.

Depends, it might attract other people who'd be put off by non-3D graphics.

On the other hand, people who play Civ don't fucking care about graphics and still play older DOS 4X games like the first two MOO games and Master of Magic.

 

[dagorkan]

It's not about caring for graphics or being old-school it's about good design. Variable zoom and panning is not just useless but the fact that it is an option makes the game more annoying. This is a 2D grid-based board game for fuck's sake. Why would anyone want to look at their troops and cities from a 30 degree angle? Have good graphics by all means, messing around with angle and zoom is plain dumb tactic to attract action gamers who won't enjoy the game anyway.

It's another example of gameplay-harming bullshit decoration over function, but apparently bullshit sells.

 

[Trash]

FFS, grow up. Or go play outside. Ranting away your childhood in a forum like this can't be healthy.

 

[dagorkan]

You're the one who seems to follow me around ready to criticize anything I say. That's even worse.

 

[Trash]

Nah, I just enjoy col. and love a new version of it.

My catamite has recently died, I need a new one.

Seriously though. Your incredible ignorant posts, combined with a know-it-all attitude just irritated me. Now that I know that you're just 14 years old, that kinda make sense. Enjoy puberty, from then on it just goes downwards.

 

[dragonfk]

3D Colonization will look just as stupid as 3D Civ 4. Those games are supposed to be board games resources are squares that you only need to see the geometric grid. Why the fuck would anyone want to zoom and pan a civ game?

+1 with no doubt

 

[Wilco]

3D Colonization will look just as stupid as 3D Civ 4. Those games are supposed to be board games resources are squares that you only need to see the geometric grid. Why the fuck would anyone want to zoom and pan a civ game?

Who gives a fuck? Since Civ's appeal is in it's gameplay, it's irrelevant whether it's played in 2D or 3D. Obviously new players would be turned off by a game which still has 2D graphics, but I think the 3D engine was also used to make the game slightly more moddable than previous installments.

I've never actually played colonisation... but it sounds like a feature that should have been in one of the expansions of Civilisation 4.

 

[dagorkan]

Trash is upset because he thinks I insulted his omg favurit gaem

3D Colonization will look just as stupid as 3D Civ 4. Those games are supposed to be board games resources are squares that you only need to see the geometric grid. Why the fuck would anyone want to zoom and pan a civ game?

Who gives a fuck? Since Civ's appeal is in it's gameplay, it's irrelevant whether it's played in 2D or 3D. Obviously new players would be turned off by a game which still has 2D graphics, but I think the 3D engine was also used to make the game slightly more moddable than previous installments.

The point is that 2D or top down or isometric is superior for a board game. It's the optimum, you gain zero advantage from any other perspective. Designers are adding inferior modes of play because consumers aren't smart enough to work it out or maybe like to see their virtual toy soldiers up close.

I've never actually played colonisation... but it sounds like a feature that should have been in one of the expansions of Civilisation 4.

Well you're wrong.

 

[Serious_Business]

Yeah so what the fuck dude, 3D because 2D games don't sell on shelves, that's that. Takes a fucking Codex degree to realise that I bet. You can earn a Codex degree by sucking dick so I think you haven't been doing it enough lately

 

[AzraelCC]

I agree with Wilco, it's all about modability. You can easily change the skin of units for your use, while retaining the verisimilitude of the animation.

As for panning and zooming, it was a replacement for the "view city" button of the previous installments. Since the wonders and improvements you did appeared on the game map instead of in a separate window, yu zoom in to see what your cities have grown into. Purely aesthetic, but it does add to the fun. I still play Master of Magic, but it doesn't mean I don't appreciate eye-candy. After all, if you think that glorified spreadsheets are 'true TBS strategy,' then go back to your office and work on that excel file you've been putting off for forever.

Anyway, back to the topic--Colonization is more of a total conversion by Firaxis, much like the Afterworld squad-based tactical scenario in Beyond the Sword (Hopefully it won't be as bad as tha particular mod). I guess the new Colonization will mod the engine enoughfollow the same structure as its predecessor, where you assign colonists and trade with natives etc.

 

[dragonfk]

I agree with Wilco, it's all about modability. You can easily change the skin of units for your use, while retaining the verisimilitude of the animation.

Anyway, back to the topic--Colonization is more of a total conversion by Firaxis, much like the Afterworld squad-based tactical scenario in Beyond the Sword (Hopefully it won't be as bad as tha particular mod). I guess the new Colonization will mod the engine enoughfollow the same structure as its predecessor, where you assign colonists and trade with natives etc.

I have no whatsoever experience with modding or animation but is it really easier to retain verisimilitude with animations of a 3D model than a 2D? Because for me it would be the other way around. And Civ3 is pretty much moddable. Huge numbers of mods for it prove it true.

As for Colonization, if they wont include the main features of it(managing your colonist, immigration, marketplaces in your homeland etc.) then there is no sense in making this game/mod in the first place.

 

[Sovy Kurosei]

Some people just try too hard to fit in.

 

[cardtrick]

Yes, 3D really is far easier to mod than 2D.

Also, I wish people would stop confusing "3D" with "free camera 3D" -- there's nothing inherently wrong with 3D, although I do agree that having a totally free camera (pannable, zoomable, etc.) can be a problem. My preference for a game like this, made with modern requirements and modern expectations, would be a 3D engine with a camera fixed to a "pseudo-isometric" viewpoint, with three set zoom levels (one close in for the "detail eyecandy wonders-ogling view", one at standard Civ2/Civ3 distance, and one farther out for a more strategic overview. Then the art and the interface could be optimized for usability at those viewpoints. (If you want eyecandy, then don't transition instantaneously between the zooms -- instead, have the camera rush in smoothly and then slow in a damped oscillation to the proper level, or do whatever the hell else you want. Obviously, have this as a disable-able option in the settings menu.)

Overly free cameras are a huge mistake. They're a big part of what makes Prelude to Darkness so awkward to play, and what made the pre-MOTB NWN2 engine so annoying (compared to, for example, The Witcher, which had a far more constrained camera).

This rambled more than I meant it to . . . long story short, the first Colonization rocked and I hope Firaxis does it justice.

 

[Lingwe]

I wish they would make Alpha Centauri 2. Or even better I wish I could find a copy of Alpha Centauri since I lost my previous version.

 

[Spectacle]

Modding units back in the Civ2 days was easy as fuck. All the unit sprites were in a single gif file, and there were no animations so you just had to draw one new sprite to get a new unit. Much easier than reskinning a 3D model!

By contrast the unit graphics in Civ3 were a collection of animation files, representing the various actions a unit could take, so adding or modifying units in Civ3 required major effort.

While it's not nescessary for a Civ game to be 3D, at this point in time there's no reason not to make it 3D either. All PC gamers should have video cards capable of runnin Civ4 with decent performance, and 3D is what artists are used to work with, so making a 2D game at this point would probably require more effort. Weren't Civ3's sprites mostly 3D renders anyway? Putting the 3D models directly into the game is just skipping a step.

 

[dagorkan]

Also, I wish people would stop confusing "3D" with "free camera 3D" -- there's nothing inherently wrong with 3D, although I do agree that having a totally free camera (pannable, zoomable, etc.) can be a problem. My preference for a game like this, made with modern requirements and modern expectations, would be a 3D engine with a camera fixed to a "pseudo-isometric" viewpoint, with three set zoom levels (one close in for the "detail eyecandy wonders-ogling view", one at standard Civ2/Civ3 distance, and one farther out for a more strategic overview. Then the art and the interface could be optimized for usability at those viewpoints. (If you want eyecandy, then don't transition instantaneously between the zooms -- instead, have the camera rush in smoothly and then slow in a damped oscillation to the proper level, or do whatever the hell else you want. Obviously, have this as a disable-able option in the settings menu.)

Overly free cameras are a huge mistake. They're a big part of what makes Prelude to Darkness so awkward to play, and what made the pre-MOTB NWN2 engine so annoying (compared to, for example, The Witcher, which had a far more constrained camera).

I 100% agree with this, it's the free camera that's the problem. At the least they should include an option to fix it in place.

Modding units back in the Civ2 days was easy as fuck. All the unit sprites were in a single gif file, and there were no animations so you just had to draw one new sprite to get a new unit. Much easier than reskinning a 3D model!

By contrast the unit graphics in Civ3 were a collection of animation files, representing the various actions a unit could take, so adding or modifying units in Civ3 required major effort.

This is true. It depends on the detail/animation quality but for basic units you'll only look at at standard zoom (which is all that's needed) sprites are not that difficult.