Teddy looks like a fat chipmunk with food in his cheeks.
The leader art is horrid. Looks more like a Civ Rev caricature.
What a pathetic direction they are taking with the visual style.
How did you manage to play cv before civ 5?
Teddy looks like a fat chipmunk with food in his cheeks.
The leader art is horrid. Looks more like a Civ Rev caricature.
What a pathetic direction they are taking with the visual style.
How did you manage to play cv before civ 5?
Has nothing to do with my opinion on this image....troll.
Has everything to do with it. It's not like Civ was a bastion of realism prior to V.
Spoiler :
Because you specifically mentioned the phrase "art direction", people are pointing out that previous games were similar stylised (if not moreso) compared to Civ VI's leader art.Try making any valid correlation what so ever between how terrible I think the Teddy leader art is, and the fact that I played previous civ games.
There is none.
Because you specifically mentioned the phrase "art direction", people are pointing out that previous games were similar stylised (if not moreso) compared to Civ VI's leader art.
Correlation done.
This Roosvelt has a fat face. I do not know why?
Because you specifically mentioned the phrase "art direction", people are pointing out that previous games were similar stylised (if not moreso) compared to Civ VI's leader art.
Correlation done.
Just putting a painting behind Teddy instead of placing him in a scene seems kind of lazy. Is this a placeholder or are they going cheap on the leaderscreens too?
Would you rather have cooler leader screen backgrounds or more leaders and civs?
I dont think it looks that bad. Also, I took that screenshot to be the "loading" screen, could be wrong though.
I sure hope not. That would make America a very, very boring Civ until late in the game. They should have something unique about them before then or I'd never want to play as them.
I didn't make any assumptions about your thoughts. I simply stated the fact that you mentioned the phrase "art direction", which is why people brought up the art direction of previous games (i.e. pre-CiV) being more in-keeping with what we've seen of Civ VI.correlation not done. (EDIT: just you making assumptions about my thoughts of the previous games art direction). I don't find the previous civ games leaders stylised to be cartoonish barely at all. the textures aren't as sharp and detailed (because they're outdated graphics) but at the time of every previous game released I've never felt caricature was the direction the design team was striving for.
Teddy's image is the worst I've ever seen in the series. Yes, the picture is detailed and sharp, but give him a beard and a red suit and he looks like a red cheeked jolly santa more so.
I think its great Teddy is finally making his appearance in civ, but he looks too fat (mostly in the face) somewhat reminds me of Taft, it also worth noting I hate caricatures but I don't care because Teddy made it in .I think he looks fantastic.
Perhaps the pic on the first page is a bad angle, haha. Here are some more taken right from the videos:
Spoiler :
It's a stylization of Teddy, so...
1) The mustache is going to be exaggerated since it's very iconic of Teddy. You make the mustache bigger, the lower part of the face must get bigger as well, or else the mustache becomes a whole other style of mustache. Not only was the mustache iconic, but that big, lovable grin of his as well.
2) The real teddy was somewhat of a burly guy and had "no neck", hence the "big cheeks" everybody keeps pointing out.
3) Another iconic part of Teddy's face are those little glasses. By exaggerating his lower half of his face, you also can exaggerate the smallness of his glasses.
Also, many caricatures of Teddy show the same big neck/cheeks and big smile/mustache.