The one thing I would love for this game to have...

Only with a big budget. And that you don't get without aiming your product for big sales, which means dumbing down the game to appeal to today's console gamers instead of yesterday's PC 4X genre gamers of old.

In short, no, it's not really possible. Has it ever been done? No. Not ever. Strategy games either seem to have strategy or eye candy, but not both.

It takes a lot of people, and thus a lot of money, to make great eye candy. But what's the use of all that eye candy if the game beneath it is boring, broken, or unchallenging?

GalCiv has a faithful and growing following because it offers something other games don't: a good game to play. Now where's your priority? On the eye candy? Or the game mechanics? It's not as if you can "have both" with any game you pick up off the shelf.

Anyway, probably not the answer you sought, but there it is.


- Sirian

They plan to go 3D for galciv2 so this one will probably get zooming stuff, but when it's out, you can bet every other game has it too.
If you feel galciv graphics are poor, play nethack for one hour and go back to galciv, you'll love its graphics.
I'm personnally quite happy with the graphics, as I think flashy graphics actually hurt the game (I don't want to spend time looking at ground battles - of course I could probably skip it, but this means money invested in graphics is wasted to me).

I know Galciv graphics are 2D and nowhere near standard for today's top games, but they do the job. But, then again, for us folks who seen Pong turn into Zork turn into Empire and Civilization (yes, I skipped quite a few evolutions I know), it was never about eye candy. It was about having enough graphics to display what was needed to play the game, and spending too much time analyzing the mechanics of the game situation to really admire too much neat graphics. (OK, I admit the mini-movies in Civ for the wonders were nice, but they were frosting in the end.)

Will that work in today's ultra-high detailed, bizillion levels of shading and light effects game market? To an extent. There will be some small increases in this type of game's graphics to keep up a bit with the times, but, as was pointed out before, a Galciv type of game is aimed at a totally different audience and Stardock does not have an immense budget. They will give us something better for GC 2, but no one should expect anything near cutting edge or even "modern" (as newer gamers would be used to) for that matter.

I wish you'd stop making bold comments that have no ties to real life, Sirian. Just like the fundementalist arguement. There has been MANY games that combined graphics with strategy. Homeworld and Warcraft III are good examples. If you want to take the arguement that you were refering to turn-based stratgy game then it's still not valid. Graphics are remained simple because turn-based gamers usually have a low-power machine, and the game is designed accordingly. Budget has nothing to do with it. Not to insult Stardock, but a lot more designer hours went into Warcraft III then Gal-Civ and they still had better, 3D graphics.

Strategy games tend to LEAN toward more simplistic graphics, again because more of the budget is been diverted to designers. However, it's no where as simplistic as you make it sound.

Umm, something 20+ years old is a fair comparison? That's the same argument as "go drive a model t-ford then you will appreciate your current unreliable & unsafe car".

I am sorry but your knowledge of the gaming world is deficient. I suggest before making making such blanket statements you spend some time doing some research.

ok i will i agree that WC3 was a good strategy game...but Homeworld wasn't really all that - how do i say this - hard strategically, in my opinion i have played others with equal graphics to that of homeworld which were harder. I am not saying it isn't a good game i love the game, story line in the first and second are fairly involving but they did lack what some would call a challenge. IMO O.R.B. (Off-World Resource Base) was more challenging, and Starmaggedon even more so. (as you can probably tell i love space strategy games ;))

~SDC~

WC3 and Homeworld are RTS games that don't exactly require a diploma in strategy to complete. GalCiv, MOO2 & 3, JA1 & 2, Silent Storm, now those are "real" strategy games, and I think you'll find that's what Sirian was referring to.

I don't get how using NetHack as an example is criticised, but then WC3 and Homeworld are used as arguments, they're just as different as Galciv is to NetHack!!!

For one, consider the scales of the maps alone, a level of Homeworld or WC3 takes what, an average of an hour to an hour and a half to complete on later levels? A big difference... plus most RTS titles are scripted and only have one way of winning, by using the "tank rush" tactic, meaning whoever builds more units first, wins

If you're going to disagree with someone, at least have half an argument to back it up with... talk about deficient...? LOL

It doesn't get much more real-life than that.



What? Of course they had better graphics. They spent a helluva lot more money DESIGNING those graphics. I haven't done the research (shame on me), but I'd wager that Blizzard's advertising budget alone for W3 was a number that the Stardock crew could only dream about.

Anybody here play the Combat Mission games from Battlefront? Another case in point.



Sirian, I'm assuming that you were speaking of true strategy games, not the flashy tactical simulations that proliferate under the "RTS" misnomer. If so, I'll have to put myself squarely in your camp.

I feel sorry that you don't see the argumenet here. I assure you, it's quite full. You're disregard to homeworld and warcraft 3 strategy only shows your ignorance. From a designer point of view balancing units statistics in an RTS is just an ardous task as fine-tweaking an economical system in a turn-based strategy game.

Strategy does not come only in turn-based games. Management games like Simcity or RTS games like homeworld have the same amount of effort and design put into them just like GalCiv, from design point of view. The fact you can "tank rush" is no different, then, let's say, the alpha strike in GalCiv.

There is no such thing as a "real" strategy game. That's just conservative, grongard bullshit. I see that from quite a few people, some of them here, and I'm honestly surprised. Sure, a lot of RTS's are crap, but tell you the truth, so are turn-based games. Just like at let's say Warlords IV broken gameplay, or Imperium Galactica 2, or master of orion 3. Plently of crappy turn-based games out there, just less games overall. Saying that RTS are just "fleshy gimicks"... how can you say that about Starcraft, for example? The game was brilliantly balanced, a triumpth of designers and a work of art in play-balancing. I say that a designer, I was darn impressed. Certainly more impressed with that then the rancid system MOO3 turned out to be (my help on the project non-wisthanding).

An RTS or a management game, done well, has all the effort and "strategy" as a real turn-based game. It's all in the presentation and design. The only problem is most RTS or management games don't have the amount of care and love because they are mostly directed into a different, more casual crowd unlike most turn-based gamers that come from the board-game community.

However, this does not change the fact that Sirian arguement is totally mute. From a budget point of view, that is developer time against graphic time, games like warcraft III had a lot more designer hours (and it shows in the perfect balance they scored), and still had impressive graphics. Sirian claim was that GalCiv was "ugly" because of budget constraints and no strategy game has ever combined strategy with graphics. Both comments are falae. GalCiv has simple graphics because they are clean and effiecent and can easily run on a weaker computer to leave more room for the taxing multi-threading AI technology. On the other hand, many good strategy games had both graphics and quality, you're opinion on them nonwishtanding.

You're just the same group of people that said it's impossible to do tactical games like X-com in real-time, or have quality pen-and-paper system converted into real-time, but that's bullshit, isn't it? Converting a difficult game into turn-based is just a matter of work and presentation, nothing else. How long a game takes place is also irrelevent. A game of chess can take five minutes - a game of GalCiv on a small map a mere hour or even less.

Seriously, if you want to argue with me, try to bring arguements that don't just show your ignorance and closed mindness.



[Message Edited]

There's nothing quite like an onslaught of invective and personal insults to prove that one opinion is indeed the Only Truth and all others are heresy. Praise Ghu, I have seen the light.

Arrr... yeah. I might have been too forceful. Sorry about that, Sirian absloute comment kinda ticked me off. No offense. Just re-read everything I've said as thought as it was written down by a rational, calm human (an oyxmoron, but never mind).

Great thread....but wouldn't it be nice if we could disagree without offending each other.

As must others has posted i think that the majority of strategy players are more interested in gameplay than graphics, so if you have to balance your development budget - graphics will probably be a 2nd priority.

So i would have to agree with Sirian (to the point that it is less likely that focus in a strategy game will be on graphics)



Sirian - i doubt you meant an harm, but i think this statement is a bit to aggressive.

Ummm yeah... there's no need for the vulgarity on a general forum board. I wasn't impressed.

Anyway, seems like I'm joining a discussion that's already heated enough as it is, so I've refrained from posting my original reply and will leave it at that. I don't think it's needed anymore after Harel's apology anyway, although I'll happy still discuss this further if it calms down a bit

DarkPaladin

Swing Low Sweet Chariot

[Message Edited]

Considering I currently play more Nethack than Galciv, I found it appropriate. Whether it's 20 year old or not, it's still in my opinion one of the very best computer games available. I also play chess and Go, which are both centuries old, and don't think that their user interface stinks when I play against other people on the web. Still, Go is just made of white dots and black dots on a square. The point is I wouldn't want to play a flashy go ot chess with animations when your pawn is killed by a knight. I'd rather play chess with a good ai than chess with good graphics, and it is the same for Galciv.
Considering the budget, it's better for galciv to improve gameplay vs. graphics.

Consider I may buy about 2 or 3 games a year, and those I like tend to last 2 or 3 years at least (I actually stopped playing MoM only when the only computer I could still run it on diedof old age). In these conditions, age of a game, and, incidentally, its graphics, are totally irrelevant to my enjoying it.

I think all Sirian was doing was noting a trend, not making an iron-clad rule.

I can understand Hiram's irritation, since a lot of TBS gamers do seem to come off as rather snobbish and dismissive of other genres. Starcraft was an RTS but it was imo more deep and strategic than Galciv. I guess I can see how someone who only played the campaigns, and never multiplayer, might disagree, but really that's their fault for not knowing the game well enough.

Harel brings up excellent points, and anybody with the integrity and cojones to admit involvement with MOO3 on an open forum has my admiration (I didn't like MOO3; does it show?) I've been called close-minded enough times in my life that I'm starting to think that they might have a point.

Far be it from me to degrade the effort and love that goes into building any game. My personal problem with RTS games is that I have yet to find one that, sooner or later, doesn't devolve into some variety of clickfest. Many people enjoy the short-ciruited-neural-loop-twitch thing, the casual gamer that Harel mentions. I don't, and I suppose I get a bit snotty about it. The obvious response here, of course, is that I don't like RTS because I simply suck at it. Yeah, okay, granted. I prefer to think of it as cognitive forebrain vs. reactive hindbrain. In fact, I curl a lip at the Alpha Strike strategy, and many of the Maso strategies discussed here, because they smack of RTS tactics. I reckon that means I'll never beat Maso...

Anyway, regarding the original post, yeah, it would be nice to have cutting-edge, crunchy, tasty graphics, but not at the expense of the sacred gameplay. My decrepit system couldn't handle it anyway. I think Sirian's hyperbolic style is what sets teeth on edge. Not mine, of course, I rather like it, but other people. If anyone ever does produce the Platonic Strategy Game, a game that satisfies both the grognards and the video-card-of-the-month club, we may have to push for a Game Development category for the Nobel Prize.

The issue is that nethack is ancient, based on prior gaphics models and available processor capability. I made no comment on WC3 & Homeworld as I have not played them.



I couldn't agree more, I assume you are going to follow that path as well?

I agree. My issue was the selective choice of examples and comparing apples with oranges. For eample, I still play some Civ because, for me, the balance of gameplay was most enjoyable. (Yes I also still enjoy the wonder movies.)

The other issue for me is that all the computer games I have played for any length of time (more than 20 hours) all have some underlying ethos or cultural/political biases. Whether I, personally, play them for more than, say, 100+ hours is very dependent on whether the expressed world view in the game actually matches, to some degree of congruity, my personal worldview or, alternatively, I can live with the dichotomy.

I don't do 'cheese' and tend to avoid military focussed victory, this latter probably makes me an oddity and also has meant the last few months or AI changes etc, which appear to have increased focus on military, has redcuded my enjoyment & playing of Galciv. Why do I mention this? As an example to illustrate my comment on matching of worldview and the games politics.

Now having poured petrol on the fire, can we agree to back off the personal comments (including me!) and talk talk about the issues raised only?

(Yes I am gulilty as well, sorry about that. )

You have not seen and will not see an actual STRATEGY game, not to be confused with tactical game, with blazing state-of-art graphics for the same reasons you will not see an "author" movie with flashy special effects. Given their respective target audience, and thus the potential return on investment, they are each made with a budget that will, hopefully, turn into profit.

As for how old Nethack is, if I follow the argument it means chess must be a very bad game since it is so much older!

~SDC~

My argument was that trying to compare nethack graphics is innapropriate, as someone who used to play competitive chess I don't think that about the gameplay/depth of old games.

Another point with Nethack is that this game can get you realy immerged into it despite the graphics. Note that modern versions of the game allow you to use tiles instead of ascii. No more @ but a small picture of a monk or whatnot.
The trned nowadays is to use graphics to immerge people in the world rather than gameplay. Compare Nethack with Morrowind: Both are RPGs. One is old, has the ugliest graphics you can think of, but allows for immersion through rich gameplay and a lot of objects with varied effects. The latter immerses you with graphics, and has much less varied set of items/effects. In fact, ultimately, even the graphically flashy Morrowind resorts to books to provide immersion into the world. And these books are not graphical, they have the same interface as nethack (plain text).

So to me the question is: How do you get immersed into the game? armed2010 suggests graphics. I think it's not necessarily the way to go. Cutscenes, for example wonder movies, could provide such an immersion too. A view of ground battles like in MOO can also be fun. In terms of graphics, it was pitiful, but for close battles, it could be fun to look at every soldier vanish one by one until it looked like you would win - or not. Sexier than just the random figures currently shown. Otherwise, deepen the gameplay, by providing more interaction with your own government for instance to rule internal politics. Or something.

Some fair points LDiCesare, and I tend to agree that graphics, although nice eye candy, really don't matter too much as long as the gameplay behind it is enthralling and keeps you coming back for more

Of course in an ideal world we'd have both!

Look, I just want it all, OK? I mean, WE are the consumers, right? I've heard most of these arguments before, especially in the field of wargaming (the quintessential "strategy and tactics" game) where production, research etc are not modelled at all. Companies try to tell us perpetually that we, as consumers, cant have good graphics AND good AI, because they cant possibly pay for both. Actually, it's their problem - but they try and make it OUR problem by suggesting we ask for too much.

Yes, I know it's tough - but build it and they will come. A relatively simple wargame, Panzer General, had brilliant graphics (for its day) and brought a new audience to computer wargaming 4-5 years ago. The grognards initially looked down their collective noses at it - but it was full of great tactical challenges (what about that Norway scenario!) and won a relatively huge audience. The recently released Korsun Pocket is a visually beautiful adaption of a classic board wargame.

Don't give up hope for an ideal world!