I don't know how many of you, including Firaxis and Sid Meier himself are aware of the game Black and White by Lionhead Studios. If you do know a fair bit about the game, you will know why I am suggesting we use Black and Whites Engine.

We now have the technology to further emerse the player into the game itself. As many people have said, including myself, the Enviroment is one of the main aspects of Civilization. It's where Civilization grows and lives. It is their requirement. So in other words, the more realistic it is, the better Civilization will be. Because, it just doesn't seem right to put people on a non-living world with no depth, does it.

Black and White's engine, personaly, is the best engine to use for this game. Unless, you can come up with something better. (VR? haha).

Here are a bunch of screenshots of Black and White, so you can use your imaginations as to what the game will be like if it was Civilization III.

Before I give you the screenshots, I just want to let you know that this world is a living-breathing world. The tree's sway, the seasons change, snow settles or disappears into the ground. Tree's change to a golden flavour in autumn, rainbows, storms/rain, and even day and night. You can see the sunrise come up and go down. Birds fly, animals are chasing each other for food or reproducing. Well, you get the picture.
http://bwvault.ign.com/display.cgi?images/screen009.jpg http://bwvault.ign.com/display.cgi?images/screen003.jpg http://bwvault.ign.com/display.cgi?images/screen008.jpg http://bwvault.ign.com/display.cgi?images/screen011big.jpg http://bwvault.ign.com/display.cgi?images/screen005.jpg

And remember, the engine is very controlable. You can zoom in so close you can see a worm poking out of an apple on top of a barrel. And you can zoom out so far, you are pretty much in space.
It's also a scalable engine. So when you zoom out everything gets smaller and when you zoom in everything gets larger.
http://www.gamecenter.com/Features/Exclusives/Top5e3/Blackwhite/shot03.html

You can rotate it round, its all controlled by grabbing the land with a hand cursor and pulling it or pushing it. And the camera view moves forward or backward or around. Total freedom.

Peter M, the designer of the game recently said. IN SCALE. Judging by the size of the villagers in the game, the entire world in Black and White is 3 times larger than our planet Earth. So don't think that there's not enough room.

And if you think computers aren't powerful enough. Surely you have a P200 with/without a 3DCard? It will always run at 15fps I think it is, which is a good smooth rate. The human eye can't really distinquish any faster than that really.

And how many units do you think can be displayed at once on screen? 500. How many units do you have an entire game? I end up with about 50. Heck, not even close to 500.

I can only say one thing: I want to buy this game! What sort of game is it?

Personally, I'm looking forward to a more "simple" Civ3, but that's because I'm hungry for a retro Civ3 with ultra-modern stuff built into the AI and the gameplay itself.

It's really difficult to explain in a short sentence. You really need to find out for yourself.
http://www.lionhead.co.uk Thats the official site. You can find it there.

Yin, what is U9?

The graphics were (are) amazing--if you have a powerful enough computer, that is. So while the weather effects were stunning and you actually felt "in" the game at times, my 450 Mhz P2 with 128 MB ram (16MB Voodoo2) choked in places, which really ruined the immersive feeling. If you haven't given the game a try, the last patch they made gets the game in pretty good shape.

However, most people don't have a comp powerful enough to run all the stuff at full tilt, so it's a bit disappointing. Ultima on-line 2 is coming out, and you can see shots of that around, too.

I'm only a bit upsetted by your enthusiastic:

quote: The AI is the most advanced AI ever created for a game.

Did you played the game in beta or you simply pass for true the common marketing "$h!t"?

Back to wonderful Black & White graphics, I agree it looks very immersive, BUT it can be appropriate for a TBS game, where B&W instead is real time?

I mean, how can we control the units movement with precise tuning? Squares or exagons (hidden or visible) are a need IMHO. Quite difficult to match a grid system with a so smooth graphic.

Of course I will be pleased to see I'm wrong (on real game, not by some players dream), better if I can play so beatiful beast on affordable Notebook (no 3D cards as powerful as desktop models).

I've been studying Black and White as much as I can for over 2 years now. The Freedom in the game, is much more than anyone is used to, this type of freedom in the game, is the most that has ever been created. It's difficult to explain how large and powerful the Engine is, how new it is, compared to games now. All I can say is, think big, think REALLY BIG. Because that is precisly what this game is.

and Adm, you have made valid points. I did very quickly fear that there wouldn't be a way to 'control' the units and so forth.

I'll tell ya what though, through my eyes, imagining how Civ III would work in a rule-less world. Would work much the same way as it does in real life. Just like it is in that other game. Shogo, anyone know it?

If I want to put my tank behind two tree's, I should be able to do it. If I want the turret to stick out 4 inches over a pond, I should be able to do it. Think about this. The Sky is completely open. There are no tiles.

Imagine, you as a tribe struggling in this large island, looking up at the sky one day, in your beautiful tropical enviroment, and seeing a jet fighter fly 700mph over your island and disappearing in seconds across the horizon. And then suddenly realising, how pathetic you are. And how advanced life is out there across the ocean.

Or Vice Versa. There is SO much depth, you can isolate yourself, you can now be a part of the game, or you can open yourself up, travel to another island, now, you can REALLY explore, a world, instead of continous tiles - this is not exploring.

Lionhead is not a shitty company. They allow thousands of people beta test their game within the sudios. They are a dedicated, down to earth company, surprisingly, more down to earth than Blizzard. Christ, Lionhead are donating some of the money that Black and White sells to charity. (And it's not a publicity stunt).

I ask Firaxis, Sid Meier, to heavly consider, opening the world, and allowing us to actualy, sit in this world.

Somehow I feel it could wreck the Civ experience with such stunning graphics (did I really say that?).

It does sound nice to be able to LIVE the world you are playing in, but I feel that that is not how civ games are. In civ games you are supposed to run a civ, not be astounded by the graphics.

In other words I could say that I feel that this graphic is too realtime. I am not sure it would work in turnbased. And I would sure hate to control every little tank in my tank division, so that they all just stick 4 inches (10 centimeters?) over some building.

In stead I hope for Civ3 to have a great AI, superb diplomacy, the rise and fall of empires, a people that actually have a will and stuff like that. Combined with CPT like graphics (I thought the graphics was the best part of that game), and possibly a spherical, tileless world (I would really like this, although there are things I would much rather have) this could be the civ of my (our?) dreams.

Meanwhile: It this game complete, and if not, when will it be?

quote: It does sound nice to be able to LIVE the world you are playing in, but I feel that that is not how civ games are. In civ games you are supposed to run a civ, not be astounded by the graphics.

Yes, some touches are really nice (seeing a plane flying over your head: an image worth a million words ), but I must take care of strategic Civ choices.

Seeing soldiers butchered on Normandia beaches didn't helped Montgomery or Eishenower to make better strategic decisions. It can be really immersive to see fights and labours from ground, but you really end loosing the whole scenery, IMHO.

Sky isn't the limit, my mind is!

It can be really interesting (immersive) to see some cut-scene (some battles or mid-turns events) modelized with so nice detail, but I suppose using this engine for cut-scene (pre-rendered are so boring, always-the-same) is really as using guns against flies: way too much (but it really take care of flies, you know ).

Of course I'll always sustain a spherical globe map for Civ worlds, if I can manage it.

You guys seem to just want to sit in your throne and tell everyone in your civilization what to do. That isn't civilization. Think harder now!

The reason why I am suggesting they 'take' the BW Engine from Peter, and then build around it.

So they have 2? years to work on diplomacy, units, trade, and whatever! The Graphics engine is already built! So they are already half way finished!

This is what I'm trying to tell you. Grab a brilliant Engine, and put Civ on top of it.

Then, they can use all their energy into the diplomacy, trade, etc. Instead of into the graphics, coz, well, most of its done!

Listen, all I'm saying is. I don't want to feel like I am playing on my computer, and thats what I get when I play Civ1 and 2. I want to feel like I am one of the people in my civilization, and actualy feel like I have real power, etc. At the moment, the only way now, to express that type of energy and whatever, is through this Graphics Engine. And then VR.

I don't want to sit in some chair, telling people what to do, for 6000 years.

HOWEVER, another game with Civ's depth AND a BW world would be very interesting. You can sort of get this VR feeling with Everquest and Ultima Online, but nobody has tried something like that from a Civ perspective. If done properly, it could be a blast.

It has to do with the kind of game I want Civ3 to be. And I don't want it to be a 3D game. And this VR idea of seeing opposing leaders at a coffee shop while you stop together and discuss philosophy has never been a part of the game. It has been the illusion of the game made possible by great gameplay.

Keep it that way.

You all know what made Civ a great game, well, I don't get that feeling from tiles anymore, sorry! I am trying very hard to bring that addictive feeling back into life with Civ!

I am trying to support the idea of BW's 3D Engine. Because of how powerful it is. And how addictive it will make the game again.

What I'm saying is, in the case of Civ3, I don't want graphics to determine how the game is going to be radically different. If you can explain a BW engine Civ3 that has all the complexity (and simplicity) of the Civ tradition, I'm sure lots of people would be interested in hearing.

The closest thing yet is likely to be Warcraft 3...but that game is a far cry from Civ's use of world history. WC3 will be fun in its own right, no doubt, and perhaps revolutionary, but for now I don't think that a sweep of history game can be done well in 3D.

And aren't you sick of 3D games? It's been beaten to death. There will ALWAYS be room for great 2D games simply because you can do things with them that no 3D game can offer.

But as stated before, B&W is a real time game, and I'm pretty sure Civ3 will be turn-based. Also...being able to see such detail in a game can wreak havoc on scale...

Imperium Galactica 2 had a cross between the two scales. There was a Galactic screen where you manuevered fleets around and a 'battle' screen. If ships were fighting, it'd zoom in and let you control ships in detail in the battle. The same thing with Tanks for ground invasions. You could also move the camera 360 degress in all directions and zoom in and out and such.

ARGH!! You guys are fustrating me!

Those two games are ancient compared to Black and White, I've seen WC3 in action, its engine is terrible, and Imperium Galactica 2's engine is even more terrible!

I am trying soo hard to explain myself, but I'm failing! doh!

I just hope to god, someone from Firaxis is reading and has seen/played a bit of Black and White! I want people who have played it to help back me up! Someone!

The reason, why 3D is so important and popular, is because its the only thing that will immerse the player more. 3D cannot be done to death, simply because its too important, its still in its very early stages of technology, but in a few years, 5-10, it will be extremely realistic.

Yin, I'll be very blunt and I know you are going to disagree with me on this, but I personaly, and seriously am getting the impression you are supporting the wrong type of game, you should be supporting an advanced chess type game instead. Civilization is a hell of a lot more than chess. Like people before have said, civilization requires atmosphere, the more, the better.

I am *very* worried, that Civilization will die in the background amongst all the other games out there that will stand out infront, because they have kept up with technology.

Civilization is a very important game to the gaming industry, it is the only game with the name that needs to be on top, in front, because the majority of the people, want to actualy put on their VR headset, and sit in some golden throne. And not only that, but walk out and walk through their kingdom whenever they please. Walk into battles, and whatever.

2D will not accomplish this. I and I am very sure most other people would want to see Civilization keep up with time so that we can actualy feel like we are controlling a real civilization. If the step isn't made with Civ3, it may lose the people's interest and we may never reach that goal in the future.

Let me ask you: Do you still play Chess? I love chess and other board games. Poker is one of the best games in the world. Now when Battle Chess came out with pieces that fight each other, etc., I thought "Cool! Let's buy that!"

You know what? It was lame. Destroyed the game.

And let me be blunt, too: Like it or not, Civ3 is not going to be in 3D. It just isn't. I guess this means you won't buy Civ3, and that's fine. However, like a great game of chess, the underlying game of Civ3 itself will be a great thing to visit again with improved 2D graphics, gameplay etc.

Am I saying Civ and Chess are on the same level? Well, personally I think Chess is a FAR more subtle game, but Civ gives you more options, so in a way it's more complex.

And let me say again, if you can sketch for me how all that makes Civ great can be put into a BW engine, let's hear it. I don't think 3D and our systems are there yet. A much more watered down 3D Civ is possible, and perhaps quite fun.

Who said Civ3 won't be in 3D? All I remember hearing is that Civ3 will be brought up to standards graphicaly, and that is from a graphic artists point of view, 3D!

By the time Civ3 comes out, and IF it's in 2D, it will look crap. absolute crap, compared to other games, most people just won't want to buy it. They'll be buying Metal Gear Solid 3 or some other game, supporting real-time rendering, etc.

I think I speak for the most, and that is that people don't want to see Civilization as a bad game, I want to see it on top. I want to see it on the top 10 list of best games of all time, again! That isn't going to happen with just good AI. Not anymore.

I can see why Loki wants a beautiful 3D Civ3, but I also agree with Yin and the others that in my mind I can not at all have it work with a civ game.

I think that I would like a BW engine for Civ, if it can be done without wrecking the civ feel.

But There are some problems:

It seems like that in BW you can actually zoom down to see every little tree and every little house. But I don't want that for Civ3! I don't want to be able to see every one of the 5 million houses in my capital. That would be sick! And I don't want to be able to talk to every one of my 160 million people. Or manage every on of my 5000 airplanes and 10000 tanks in a war. That would be ridiculous.

I would, however, like to have the people have a mind of it's own, so that they reflect and interact to the things that I do. But I don't need stunning graphics to do that.

I know that we all sound very conservative regarding Civ3. I myself don't think of myself as a conservative Civ3 fan. I would like a total remake of the game engine. But I am not sure if it should include total 3D. Especcially the 3D of BW, which seems more microlike, in stead of the macro feel of Civ games. A more down to earth 3D engine in Civ3 could work, but at the same time I think that 3D becomes ugly if it isn't done well.

Ohh, I don't know anymore! I just hope that Firaxis does whatever works best for the game.

Loki:
You said that BW would be out by september 23rd. But it sounds like you have already played it. How does this combine?

Ok, my obvious point is to have a way to switch between a Civ 2 "Chess board" with 2D units and flat terrain, and a more graphically intense game with 3D units, better City and terrain views, etc...

Both should be very simple to use and operate, and the 3D version should not consist of movies for every battle that takes place. However, you always have the option if you're not in the mood for a long, graphic game with eyecandy.

3D may be better for games on Earth and Scenarios such as WWII. 2D if you're simply playing on a new world. Although you could switch between them at any time.

Please explain that. Don't you want to see what your civilization, actualy looks like? and how big, it actualy looks.

I've got a suggestion. Play Indiana Jones, Infernal Machine, go to the island level, where the tiki's are, etc. While you're standing on the beach, try to imagine, having, about, 30? other people on the island with you. And imagine, telling the people to build you a tribe hut here on this beach. Some will go out and get the wood, and others will go hunting for food.

Then go swimming in the ocean, go to the area where there is a wrecked Japanese Ship, imagine that ship was one of yours, or one of your enemies ships that you destroyed, in real time.

I'm not asking for a house for every person, We really need to feel like we are in control of the situation. If I am controlling situations from in the sky and looking down on crappy graphics (which is actualy "the world you are playing in") then you aren't getting the *correct* feel of how a civilization should be growing.

Okay, It would have to be RTS, in order for it to look right.

BUT...I think, a suggestion is simple, first...in history, a lot of battles were known to happen, so they could get ready for the battle, other battles were out of the blue, and thats where you are gonna have to use your strategic skills with defences, etc. but they don't have to happen instantly, you could have lookout points, which can warn you of some men coming over the horizon. The enviroment is much much larger, than things like warcraft, etc. where its just too difficult to get ready for incoming battles.

You might be on some large tropical island, and one day decide to walk up a high hill, and look over your civilization, you notice a large clearing which leads towards your tribe, you could think, oh, well I better put a large wall there to stop any intruders, and maybe two guardsmen. Then you see some of your people, go off into the woods, come back with some wood, and back to the clearing and start building the wall out of bamboo or something.

So you can start doing all the things that civilizations used to do a long time ago.

I know its starting to sound like a really big thing to accomplish, but it's just one of those things that must be done. The first person to do it, will shake the gaming industry, twice!

It's one step down from the ultimate gaming experience!

Take a breath. Remember that this is Civ. It's not VR. It's not RTS. If you can make a game like that then I'll pay you lots of money to play it. Until then, it'd be easier if you found your own island and started telling the natives to build you a hut.

okay, here's a screenshot from within Indy (its 3D).
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~knowles/shot.gif

Imagine, being the Aztecs, and living in valleys, surrounded by snakes, and other animals and birds flying in the sky.

And imagine telling your people to build that big building in the screenshot. and you can only build it if you have the resources.

All of the land you see in the background is visable, and you can journey there if you wish to. You can say, right, we need a second city coz this city is getting too big, so you tell quater of your people to pack up and head on over those hills and mountains. (And you can go with them). To find a good spot for another city.

Glonk, I've said before, the world in BW's Engine is 3 times as large as earths, judging by the scale of the people in the game. (and they aren't dots )

I guess I'll try this one more time, but I'm not sure we are understanding each other anymore on this topic.

What you are describing will ONE DAY be quite an experience! But it won't happen for Civ3 or any other game to the depth you describe for a long, long time. Yes, it's going to happen in one form or another, and I'll be gladly buying the equipment and slapping down my money when it happens.

But...

I'll also be buying great 2D games like Civs 10, 20, 30 years from now simply because sometimes I like the way that kind of game plays. And I'm sure many people feel the same way. Many times I simply DON'T want to be immersed in a game completely. Then it becomes almost like work, if you get my meaning. Do I really want to ride the raft over to the next island and catch some fish along the way to keep from starving?

But if you look at my computer, you'll see some good 3D stuff (like Ultima9) as well as some GREAT 2D TBS stuff (like Heroes of Might and Magic: Shadow of Death). You'll also find chess.

So the point isn't that one kind of game MUST rule the future. That's silly. There will always be room for many styles of games to be immensely popular whether they are 2D, 3D or god knows what else. GO is one of the most played games in the world, and it's nothing more than black and white (the irony) stones on a grid marked in some wood. Consider that.

I share your overall enthusiasm, however, for the game you describe, but we might both be very old men before it's absolutely the "real" experience you seem to want it to be. And it certainly isn't possible with even the best computer any of us can buy. Perhaps the team at IBM could give it a whirl, but...

You don't need 3D graphics to immerse yourself in a game. What you need is atmosphere. Consider one of the best games of all time: UFO: Enemies Unknown (XCOM: UFO Defense for you Americans ). Anybody who have ever played the game got totally sucked into it. Yet the game has no 3D graphics. It doesn't even have animation -- okay, maybe extremely crude animation. Same goes with Civ. Civ doesn't even have animation at all.

On the other hand, there were a large number of Myst clones with stunning graphics. However they had no gameplay at all.

Furthermore, that engine is way too precise to be used for Civ's far out view. I want Civ III to have 3D graphics, and I'd like you to be able to zoom in pretty close, but the B&W engine is TOO precise and not nearly as quick as it's designers claim it to be.

15 frames a second is PAINFULLY jerky. Just get out whatever version of Quake you own and do some benchmarking on it. You'll see that below 25 FPS the game is just annoying.

Does Civ III need 3D graphics to be an economic success? Yes. Does it need silly-ly precise 3D graphics from a totally different game engine? No. If anything, a Voxel-based engine would be superior to the polygon-based ones used in B&W. The only reason to use poly engines is that so many people have 3D graphics cards. As for people claiming "I don't have a 400MHz processor and Voodoo2+ graphics card, I won't be able to play!" well, too bad. This is PC gaming. Things move on. You need to upgrade to lay recent games. Period. You'll still have AC, CivII and other games, but if CivIII needs a decent processor and so on to play, well, there you go. You need an expensive car to compete in most races.

I'd also like to join the gang who would play civ3 if it's using the Civ1 engine with vastly upgraded gameplay, and I know there are quite a lot of you out there, let alone fans of the Civ2 engine. Of course, the graphics WILL be better than that, and hopefully changed for the better, but I pray, don't give me full 3D. I don't even like RTS games in total 3D, it becomes too cumbersome compared to a top-down view. And yes, I have tried quite a few.

I'd like to end with an equation: How many polygons would it take to recreate the world in full 3D. Now check your answer with the technology and speed of your processor and graphics card... I think you'll find the first total is quite a few times bigger than the second one...

just my .02

quote: Originally posted by Private Viper on May 19, 2000 12:03 As for people claiming "I don't have a 400MHz processor and Voodoo2+ graphics card, I won't be able to play!" well, too bad. This is PC gaming. Things move on. You need to upgrade to lay recent games. Period. You'll still have AC, CivII and other games, but if CivIII needs a decent processor and so on to play, well, there you go. You need an expensive car to compete in most races.

I must take issue with this viewpoint.

As you have said so well, this is PC gaming, not PC snazzy geewhiz 3D realtime graphics.

Yes, things do move on, but somehow there aren't any classic games in the recent years, not in the sense of Civ or UFO: Enemies Unknown. There is simply no reason that games must have gratuitous graphics to succeed. There are many games with graphics that simply get in the way of playing. For example, in Risk II, whenever there is a battle the game zooms in and shows a bunch of soldiers shooting at each other. This was fun for the first couple of times you watch, then you find out it slows down the game too much. Luckily, this feature can be disabled. But why bother putting it in in the first place?

P.S. Viper, I've been visiting CNCNZ since it was TSNNZ, great site, didn't you have to go to the military? Are you out?
RA2 Yay!

I hope people read it thoroughly before they post their message. It's fustrating, having to keep repeating myself.

Eurhetemec, I'm going to ignore you, you sound stupid.

You DON'T NEED A 3DCARD TO RUN THE BLACK AND WHITE ENGINE, NOR DO YOU NEED A 400MHZ COMPUTER. A 200 works fine! The more polygons I have on display at any time , the slower my computer is going to run, depending on the graphics card, right? That's not entirely true, it's mostly about programming. Black and Whites engine is programmed to run as smooth as a babys arse every time, all the time. It never jerks.

Pirate Viper, I've considered what you've said before, it's obvious that you would have to alter the engine in order for it to work for civ3. I didn't feel I had to say this, because, well, its just obvious, sorry, I spose I should have mentioned it at the beginning, a lot of other people have been saying the same sort of thing.

I have never seen Civ as a type of game that fits well in chess type genres.
I've always seen it as a game that should be the best it can be.

Don't you think...you would get more of a 'thinking' game out of it, if you had a rule-less world? Much like the world we live in now. Don't you think you would get the correct type of game that civilization should be played at?

If I had a tiled game, that said, I can't move my tank there coz well, thats not programmed, then aren't I limited to what it really should be? So I'm not really playing Civilization, I'm playing Chess: Civilization.

I DON'T WANT TO PLAY CHESS! I WANT TO PLAY CIVILIZATION AS IT SHOULD BE!

I would have to consider soo many more things if the game had no rules! It would require, REALLY thinking about everything!

So I don't think there's much to argue about: We all want the game to be substantially better...just some of us have a different focus from others. Hey, variety is the spice of life.

What you decribe is "live the life of a ruler", which might be fun for a minute, but then your ruler would eventually have to go to his 3d war room and look at a 2-d map to plan how to rule his land anyway.