Graphics

[GhostSalsa]

Option to play the whole time in the cool new fog/inky map style please…

 

[Gedemo]

I don't like the borders new straight style (like in Beyond earth)

 

[anandus]

I don't like the borders new straight style (like in Beyond earth)

Those borders were also in Civ 5 pre-release.

 

[Gjaster]

I personally prefer the more cartoony art style over the more realistic one from Civ5. While I like Civ5, I personally think that certain games, specifically strategy, just seem to look better with a less-than-realistic look to it, versus other FPS games that benefit from more realistic ones.

 

[PenguinPower]

I was more a fan of Civ V's graphic style, but the fog of war pretty dull. I really enjoy the fog's display here, but find that I'm not as big a fan of the graphics looking more like a mobile game. Still, seeing the wonders have their own areas instead of being so small is pretty cool, and I can live with it as long as the game is of good quality, of course.

 

[dexters]

I was more a fan of Civ V's graphic style, but the fog of war pretty dull. I really enjoy the fog's display here, but find that I'm not as big a fan of the graphics looking more like a mobile game. Still, seeing the wonders have their own areas instead of being so small is pretty cool, and I can live with it as long as the game is of good quality, of course.

Civ5 was the first Civ to feature a non-black Fog. The white clouds was actually an interesting change.

I remember reading an article somewhere that it was meant to reflect the optimism of the future or something like that, and I think it pretty much encapsulates what Civ as a franchise is about. Forward looking and optimistic.

The black flog of war in hindsight seems regressive. I'm glad they didn't go to black with Civ6

 

[PenguinPower]

Civ5 was the first Civ to feature a non-black Fog. The white clouds was actually an interesting change.

I remember reading an article somewhere that it was meant to reflect the optimism of the future or something like that, and I think it pretty much encapsulates what Civ as a franchise is about. Forward looking and optimistic.

The black flog of war in hindsight seems regressive. I'm glad they didn't go to black with Civ6

Sadly I've never played another Civ besides 5, being something of a noob to the series

God, I can't imagine black just encompassing most of the map in the early Game or small patches of darkness in certain parts of the world, the expansive void/miniature black hole would irritate me to no end. Still, I much prefer the 'here be dragons' style they're bringing for VI. I love the early exploration of games like this and really enjoy that the UI and presentation will be inspired by the Age of Exploration.

 

[GhostSalsa]

What I worry about most is the lack of microcosmic late-game metropolis payoff. Bringing tactical significance to map sprawl is fine, but is it really more important for me to see an ugly 50s-small-town-slash-lego-set-playpiece parking lot than the awe-inspiring late game cities of V? Really? Parking lots?

I would spend half an hour at the end of completed V games just admiring the way cities looked, especially if it was all in the hills and mountains. And that was all part and parcel of the immersion. It was the payoff to all that world-building: the world I built (well, usually stole from the AI) looked incredible. There are some places, especially in a historical game, where realism and symbolism are not oppositional forces, but two sides of the same immersion coin. That V got this right on three or four key notes is what made it such a replayable game.

If cities in VI attempt to be more "engaging" via a series of gimmicks and party tricks that sacrifice their iconic identity as cities, they will fail, because they won't look like cities. I predict the excessively distinctive city districts will be walked back quite a bit in later patch skin updates, in favor of murkier, messier, V-style sprawl.

 

[dexters]

What I worry about most is the lack of microcosmic late-game metropolis payoff. Bringing tactical significance to map sprawl is fine, but is it really more important for me to see an ugly 50s-small-town-slash-lego-set-playpiece parking lot than the awe-inspiring late game cities of V? Really? Parking lots?

3 things

- Civ late game to date is almost always full of improvement spam. Usually of only a few types. Not pretty.
- The last time I felt awed was Civ3 city view, but those were canned pre-rendered stuff.
- We haven't yet seen late game metropolises in the previews

 

[Gjaster]

While I was initially shocked and disappointed with the art style, I came to like it the more I looked at it, and after the gameplay footage was released, I came around and began to love the more cartoony aspect of it. I would honestly sacrifice hyper-realistic graphics for a more readable cartoony one anyway. Besides, I think it honestly looks much better than Civ5, as far as the graphics go. Some things, however, like the grasslands, could use a bit more detail in their textures, but other than that it looks amazing and I can't wait to play it come October.

 

[meatpardle]

It would be nice it were more 'realistic, although I'm still scarred from BE's awful map graphics so from a gaming perspective anything that adds colour and definition is welcome.

 

[darkace77450]

After seeing a bit of the late game buildings in today's video, I think I'm going to have to cast my vote for "I don't like the change". The individual districts and buildings all look very nice, but as a whole it makes the cities look disjointed and the map cluttered. If the various districts that make up a city somehow integrated as the city grew, so that they looked like a cohesive settlement, I'd be all in on the graphical changes. But as is, it looks like a child forget to put his toys away when he was done playing.

 

[m15a]

After seeing a bit of the late game buildings in today's video, I think I'm going to have to cast my vote for "I don't like the change". The individual districts and buildings all look very nice, but as a whole it makes the cities look disjointed and the map cluttered. If the various districts that make up a city somehow integrated as the city grew, so that they looked like a cohesive settlement, I'd be all in on the graphical changes. But as is, it looks like a child forget to put his toys away when he was done playing.

To me, it looks like districts that are adjacent to the city blend into the city center when the city is big, but non-adjacent districts don't. Maybe it's not quite as cohesive as it could be or maybe it looks better at certain times in the video than others, though.

I can't really think of a way that a non-adjacent tile can look connected to the city center while keeping the tile(s) in between the two distinct, though.

 

[dexters]

The late game cities look real nice.
Day/night looks good.

I'm am as satisfied as I could be.

P.S.
Cleopatra is really well animated & rendered. You can tell the graphics engine and shaders are more advanced than the Civ5 leader screens. (not so apparent with T.R.)

OT: They went with the Rome Cleopatra look

Spoiler :

 

[Alex Khan]

I don't like cartoonish textures similar to Farmville and I hope will be launch mods with realistic texture . I like buildings and units are more detailed.

But vegetation , soil and water from Civ V looked better .

 

[kiwitt]

I am getting the Civ 6 screenshots in my Facebook feed now. Reading the early comments just now, I see I am not alone in that assessment. Its a shame really. I would have thought they would have learnt from Civ 5 / BE.

It looks as if you can run the game on Intel's integrated graphics. And it makes no effort to show it can utilize the high-end graphics cards most desktop gamers have. i.e. it looks as if it is for casual gamers on basic laptops / tablets.

I am now playing "Armored Warfare" based of the Crytek graphics engine and the photo-realistic quality I see there with my 2 year-old graphics card (and I am sure in many other games), makes Civ 6 seem 'cheap'.

 

[King Jason]

I would have thought they would have learnt from Civ 5 / BE.

They did learn from Civ5 and BE - they actually decided to make the game look good.

 

[Thorburne]

I think that the game looks great. I love the map effect. My concern ours about the hardware required for (standard) effects. I don't need "cutting edge" graphics for civilization. I'd rather hardware be utilized for larger maps and faster turn processing.

Sent from my LG-H345 using Tapatalk

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I think that the game looks great. I love the map effect. My concern ours about the hardware required for (standard) effects. I don't need "cutting edge" graphics for civilization. I'd rather hardware be utilized for larger maps and faster turn processing.

Sent from my LG-H345 using Tapatalk

THIS is most likely the reason why they went with more simpler graphics on top of the map readability. Civ isn't agame about looks, it's about how much the PC can handle processing for AI and strategy.

 

[cpm4001]

They did learn from Civ5 and BE - they actually decided to make the game look good.

I dispute that! But this argument's been done to death, and it looks like those of us who think the graphics look far too cartoony are in the minority. So, if you like the graphics, I hope you enjoy the game. I won't be playing it.

In the meantime, @kiwitt, here's my recommendation: If you can handle Civ V's graphics (can't tell if you do or don't from your post), go try Gazebo's 'Vox Populi' mod. It's got pretty much all the good stuff from Civ VI (indeed, Civ VI actually seems to have ripped off quite a bit from it) plus a bunch of extra great stuff that won't make it into Civ VI until the expansions. And on top of it all, the AI's actually really good and the graphics don't look completely ridiculous!