I just wonder - how many of you actually play this game inside the "3d world"? Personally, I never get out of the tactical view (that is, the 2d-iconed hud when you zoom out the map). The 3D is simply useless. All the information you need to play the game appears in the tactical view and the various menus. Plus, you get a much more comprehensive and over-all view of the entire map (depends on its size).
It seems that great efforts were put in making the 3D world and all that Ship Design system, but at least for me, it doesn't have its place inside the real game, since it doesn't play any functional role.
Heh! That's what plastic surgery is for.
Sentient species taste better...
Silly feline...by stating about plastic surgery to fix looks on a nice personality woman, you just turned my anaolgy up on end.
So in that sense, a game with good content can always just be re-hashed in graphics to bring it up on par? I guess that is why Stardock didn't place a pixil limit on galciv then.
Nah, just joking around. My gf is a big fan of the idea of plastic surgery...she likes to joke about all the things she could get done, but she's never actually done anything. In truth though, I'm generally against the idea.
And this fact means what? that people want 3D but don't want multiplayer? fine, I can't argue with that. People do want their games to be in 3D, but I also think they must not forget that it means it comes at the expense of something else. Namely, a better gameplay experience.Nevertheless, I wouldn't mind having a good 3D engine, only if it is implemented properly into the game. Again, see Civ4 for a good example. In galciv2, however, it simply doesn't. The 3D interface feels awkward, it's hard to navigate around the map, and it's also too uninformative and clumsy - just one example: in order to see a planet's class rate you'd have to hover over it with your mouse... why? In the tactical view you get that information straight ahead by just looking at the planet's icon.
Besides, I highly doubt Stardock has ever conducted a poll in this regard ("What would you prefer - an attractive 3D engine or a deeper gameplay?"). This is also why we're having this discussion.
Where did I imply that? I think galciv offers a very good gameplay experience. Of course, it has its flaws, but I do enjoy playing it, otherwise I wouldn't have been here. In simple words, what I was trying to say is that I would undoubtly prefer a richer gameplay experience over a 3D engine, especially if it's flawed like in galciv2.
Im in on the 3D view. I have never used the 2D view in any gam ei have played so far. I set the graphics to key 3 and i find it does me fine even on a lowly 19" widescreen laptop. Each to their own though i guess its down to the individuals taste as to what level they set their view to. Just got to love the devs for giving us more than one view to choose from in the game.
3D view for ever LOL
no, they conducted a poll along the lines of, "would you pay for a multiplayer-only expansion." they also openned a discussion about multiplayer, and the community overwhelmingly shot it down.
here:
i at least at that time i felt it was a clear implication, since your posts and responses have dwelled on the things you dislike. but now with your clarification, my opinion has changed.
my point was about the type of resource, not the overall amount. some of SD's devs are qualified to code the gameplay, and others the 3D, and others art. the people that code the gameplay have other work, other projects. it's not just limited money, but limited time, and they only had so many devs available at the time. i'm not so sure skipping the 3D engine would've made up the money SD might've lost by pulling the other devs off other projects to focus on GC2 for longer than they have. their biggest chunk of income is from their windows blinds and other UI stuff. without knowing how much the 3D engine coders help on those higher-profile projects, neither of us can really make a solid assertion about how much "better" the rest of the game could've been without the effort spent on the 3D engine.
this is a hypothetical discussion, and your points are no less hypothetical than mine, since you're not balancing their budget. you talk a lot about a "deeper gameplay experience," and i think this is one issue where throwing money at the problem isn't an ideal solution. i think the more significant barrier in that regard is how removed the developers are from the kind of intense, prolonged exposure to this game that the hardcore players have. trying to explain the kinds of things that would make the game a more enjoyable experience are not only difficult to explain, but highly subjective. i disagree about the assertions you've made about how the 3D engine is integrated into the game, and feel that Civ4 wasn't done especially well from what i've seen. i'll agree wholeheartedly that GC2 could've been done better. but i think you oversimplify that.
i think there are plenty of examples of the overall quality of a game suffering because too much effort was put into graphics. i don't think this is one of them at all.
Look, when I'm in GC2, I get to pretend I am the leader of a galactic civilization! I'm not playing a game, moving pieces around. I'm ordering ships to do by bidding, and building cities the likes of which the galaxy has never seen before! Behold the glory of my awesome planets, the way the sunlight glints off of them in just that way to let you know that my civilization is the one which will soon dominate the rest of the galaxy!
I can't do this in the tactical view.
Getting into the experience like this is not "useful" from the aspect of meeting victory conditions, but it's fun.
Kind of like life!
Surely the people who create the artwork and effects aren't the same people who program the game mechanics and AI, right?
I'm not sure what the fuss is about. If you don't like playing with the 3D graphics, then you certainly have the option not to (as you obviously know.)
It's not like the gameplay suffered because of the graphics. If you don't like the 3d, just don't use it.
Besides which, graphics are good for sales. That's a fact.
As KP, bless your marbles & Amen bro.
It may seem weird to some when i say that i always believed GC2 is not far off being a simple showcasing dynamo for ObjectX features. A sort of 'pub_stunt' for the business responsible for what's quoted above.
It sure went beyond that (if you were to compare the successive versions), but from a pure hard-core gamer standpoint - the design choices made fit a fairly well known formula; give consumers what they want.
I'm being conservative by stating that 90+% of players prefer finely tuned artwork to most features found in OTHER games. Trick is... A--to dare being somehow different (or better at it), B--to catch a wide market slot in the process and, C--to stick with your guns.
SD's decisions served me quite well so far, cuz they just so happen to share my preferences for gameplay & i'm sure of many more.
Twisting concepts to answer limited scope in most markets is risky. Sturdy & efficient 3D engines, included.
Remember Doom? FPS, alive and kicking. A splash of blood here, pick ammos, what's hiding at the end of those corridors. Now try to render that kinda stuff in 2D - i wish you good luck.
For whatever it is worth I almost exclusively use the 3d mode, right at the point before it turns to 2d. This is in the largest sized galaxies. I like it and find it feels quite immersive, and only rarely use the 2d by scrolling up quickly and then back to get a larger-sized tactical picture or whatever. In fact I "rediscovered" the 2d mode recently, generally relying generally on a good "mind picture" of what is going on (and the map in the bottom-right-hand corner).
Although this is a great game and the majority of what is great about it has little or nothing to do with the graphics, by the same token they are very nice to have and the game would suffer in my eyes (notice the choice of expression!) without them. It is part of what gives the game professional polish as well as making it feel more like a "real" galaxy.
Edit: very much agree with Ben Parrish
I don't find the 3d view any more immersive than the tactical view, but I do find that I don't have nearly enough information available in 3d. Like others have said, I only zoom in to 3d to see time remaining on autopilot, select launch direction -- and watch terror star explosions. But then I don't use the ship designer at all either except to plunk components on. It's really too bad I don't find the 3d aspects of the game compelling, it's a waste of a fairly beastly machine. In fact, I'd trade the 3d engine and the ship designer for full multi-core support. I'd love to see solid 100% cpu utilization across all cores.
just a point to everyone who strongly prefers the 3D or tactical view: the point when it switchings can be changed, to either extreme either such that it's always 3D or always tactical. i meant to bring that up earlier. not sure exactly which preference it is (i'm at work).
I didnt know that Dys...thanks!
"Tactical Zoom Level" I think it's called. Also if memory serves, as the slider goes up, the further and further you must go in to see 3D mode, so people who pull every slider to max get stuck in 'crappy graphics' mode.
i think you're right. and yes, on super-zoom-out everything does look pretty bad. i consider the tactical zoom as much an aesthetic thing as "tactical," since there comes a point when things get so small that the chess pieces are more useful.
I play mostly zoomed in at start... and mostly zoomed out at end. All in all, I love the 3d...It's good for the extra immersion value, but doesn't crap itself trying to outrun reality.
On an aside, I still play HOMM3 today, even though I can run anything on the market...the gameplay just wins, and my mind is flexible enough to enjoy the visuals. I'm glad GC2 doesn't look like HOMM3, but then I'm pretty sure I'll be playing it right up to GC3. And if GC3 fails...then likely beyond.
HOMM3 is one of my favorite all-time games! Did you ever download the Wake of the Gods enhancement? That was all player created enhancements to the game after it became abandonware. A more accurate description would be to call it HOMM3.5.
I'll put on this what I like about games is the immersion of being able to do useless things just for fun... for example most car games don't allow to use blinkers though when one does, I absolutely love it ... I also like to use toilets in FPSes (started with Duke3D ^^ ) And in galciv2, what bothered me the most at first, was the crappy tech descriptions which are quite bad for immersion...
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
