1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

A problem with 2d leader backgrounds

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Krajzen, Jun 18, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. HorseshoeHermit

    HorseshoeHermit 20% accurate as usual, Morty

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,274
    Location:
    Canada
    I've played for a long time, and I actually cannot see the "backgrounds" in Civ V. I just assumed Harald was missing that other leg and Aaron the Righteous was doing some kind of yoga squat?

    What do you mean Bismarck isn't just a torso and Fähigkeit?
     
  2. Haig

    Haig Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Messages:
    2,280
    Location:
    Finland
    In my civ priorities leader backround is waaaay bottom.

    Would you trade animated backrounds to a bare bones features of civ 5 launch?

    Which disturbs more, no animated palaces or archers shooting across english channel?

    The left side of leaderscreen is going to be filled with info and diplomacy options, who cares is it animated.

    I like having animated trees and watermills back for civ 6 after the lot more static civ 5 map by the way.
     
  3. King Jason

    King Jason Fleece-bearer

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Messages:
    2,027
    I don't care.

    For decades there's been so much emphasis on who's in and what they look like but it's just lost on me. I shut off every animated leaderhead civ decides to throw my way, civ6 better have the option too. I don't need to see alexander stroll up on his horse, or harald lean on a boat. It virtually does nothing for me.

    Just Portraits? civ4 had very animated and exaggerated leaders. Which is another reason I'm surprised at people's reactions to civ6 - Stylization is the norm in the civ series; The only iteration that didn't follow that trend was civ5.
     
  4. Loaf Warden

    Loaf Warden (no party affiliation)

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2001
    Messages:
    1,972
    Location:
    Alaska Grown, currently Outside
    That's exactly right. Civ V seems to have spoiled a lot of people with its attempts at a more realistic look. It's the Civ game we've gotten used to playing these last six years, and a lot of people have forgotten that Civ had always been bright, light-hearted, and stylized up until then.

    Personally, I don't care about leaders interacting with backgrounds. The leader scenes of Civ V look awesome the first few times one sees them. But in my experience at least, they became routine quickly enough, and I stopped paying much attention to what this leader was doing or which of the few vocal clips that leader was spitting out and just read the text and clicked the buttons. I don't mind that the leader scenes have gotten more stylized, and I'm annoyed that they're staying with the gimmick of having the leader "speak their own language" at you. I found the voice clips repetitive, and in many cases they didn't bother with the "own language" thing and screwed it up anyway. (Ramesses II speaking Arabic, for example. Or Attila speaking modern Chuvash, albeit--according to people on the internet who speak Chuvash themselves--very, very badly.)

    I support dropping the Civ V-style leader screens in favor of leader screens that will be faster to create and potentially lead to more leaders being included. Whether that's more leaders per civ, or just more leaders in general (including ancient leaders for whom we don't know how their language sounded), I'm in favor of having the leader screens be simpler and more stylized. I'm okay with 2D backgrounds, and I would be even more okay with dropping the vocal clips.
     
  5. footslogger

    footslogger Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    Messages:
    206
    Location:
    Thailand
    I too regard the appearance of the leader screen as being of minimal importance. As others have said, I barely notice what it looks like after a few viewings. Of much greater importance from the point of view of gameplay enjoyment is the sense of a distinct personality to each leader and this will be much better conveyed through the new agenda system (assuming it's well done) than through the visuals. Having a good idea of how a leader will respond to my own actions as I build up info about him over time will give me much more sense of being up against a believable, individual leader. This was one of Civ5's mistakes - in trying to make other leaders more humanlike as opponents, it merely made them impossible to predict and no fun from a gameplay point of view. A certain amount of unpredictability is a good thing for gameplay enjoyment, but not so much that it overwhelms all sense of who we are up against.
     
  6. Felis Renidens

    Felis Renidens Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 25, 2016
    Messages:
    542
    Location:
    Israel
    If only they had those advisers from Civ1... :p
    But I don't really care much. It's more important that I'll get all the info that I need and will be able to do interesting things.
    I liked some of the screens of Civ5 and disliked Civ4 leaderheads which where too childish for me (even compared to 3).
     
  7. nunor

    nunor Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    776
    Krajzen, imagine for a moment that Civ6 was going to have 5's leaderscreens, and vice-versa. In other words, imagine that Civ5 had 2.5D backgrounds with profusely animated leaders, and Civ6 would have 5's 3D interactive backgrounds. What would your post say?

    A problem with 3D leader backgrounds
    I had no problem with 3D leader backgrounds before I realized this will negatively impact not the quality of backgrounds themselves but quality and diversity of leaders too.

    Let me explain, in civ5 leaders are not distant and bland figures merely put in distracting 3D backgrounds, they stand out and are highly expressive.

    This is not the case now. Leaders may be very well have objects which they can interact with, but they all are going to just blend in with their backgrounds, looking like stiff androids.

    That's unpleasant hit to my immersion. No 3D background can imitate the expressiveness and sense of proximity of Cleopatra's lifelike gestures and expressions, even more highlighted against a darker and simpler background.

    Your thoughts?


    What I mean by this exercise is: you got used to Civ5 leaderscreens, but they actually have no significant advantage over Civ6's. What's immersive in having a diplomatic meeting amidst a burning city, with a guy standing 10 metres away from you?

    I think it's much more immersive to have a conversation with a figure that's close to me, with highly expressive movements, with no distracting stuff happening around us. Just him/her and me, talking in a room. Looks more like a diplomatic meeting to me.
     
  8. winddysphere

    winddysphere Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    157
    Maybe they got an idea from BE and implement it with minimal background?
     
  9. King Jason

    King Jason Fleece-bearer

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Messages:
    2,027
    Or civ2... Seriously - there are so many complaints that the graphics make the game look like it's for kids? How about literally having an Elvis Impersonator as one of your esteemed advisers since the dawn of time. :rolleyes:

    The military adviser might as well have been R. Lee Ermey (um this would actually be amazing. I demand this happen).

    Civ has never really taken itself too seriously. civ5 was the odd man out.
     
  10. Felis Renidens

    Felis Renidens Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 25, 2016
    Messages:
    542
    Location:
    Israel
    In Civ2 you didn't have them at the diplomacy screen. Just those dancing heralds, if you had the memory.
     
  11. Zaarin

    Zaarin My Dearest Doctor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    5,704
    Location:
    Terok Nor
    As a linguistics geek who is particularly fond of obscure languages, I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I love listening to the leaders speak in their own languages when they get it right--Pacal speaking Yucatec Maya is my favorite. But then they made some bizarre compromises: Boudicca speaking Welsh is the worst, and then there's Ramesses II speaking Egyptian Arabic rather than Coptic (I'm actually surprised they found a woman to speak Coptic for Cleopatra; shouldn't they have been able to find a Coptic Orthodox priest to speak Ramesses' lines?), Elizabeth speaking Modern rather than Elizabethan English, Monty speaking Modern rather than Classical Nahuatl...Still, on the whole, I'd rather have it than not, but having more lines and more accuracy would certainly be appreciated.
     
  12. RohirrimElf

    RohirrimElf Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    955
    Siam or Gandi (civ 5) for example did not interact with their background as well. And those backgrounds only had limited water effects. These backgrounds are a bit more exciting but not by much.
     
  13. Krajzen

    Krajzen Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    2,461
    Location:
    Poland
    In general "Celtic" civ in civ5 was ridiculous failure, I'd have nothing against it not appearing in game at all - it was unholy mixture of Picts, Iceni, Gauls, continental Celts, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, with Iceni leader starting in modern capital of Scotland :p
    It was an equivalent of introducing "Nordic" civilisation led by Leif Ericson (speaking Swedish) with capital in Copenhaga, Norwegian Viking unit, Hansa building and city names being mix of Danish, Swedish and Finnish city names.
    Complete nonsense on all levels.

    Moderator Action: Please stay on topic.
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
     
  14. AriochIV

    AriochIV Analyst

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,617
    Location:
    San Jose, California
    Hey! Don't say bad things about my waifu! :D

    The native language voiceovers are a nice touch, but that team must surely have a limited budget, and so I can imagine that they do as much research as they can and then must settle with "good enough" to meet schedule and budget. The vast majority of Civ players will never know the difference (although even I did notice Montezuma's use of "imperio").

    It would actually make an interesting short documentary to hear the stories of how they find and cast these voices.
     
  15. Loaf Warden

    Loaf Warden (no party affiliation)

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2001
    Messages:
    1,972
    Location:
    Alaska Grown, currently Outside
    They've had "the Celts" in every game since Civ II, and it's never really worked. They can never quite decide whether "Celts" refers only to the ancient inhabitants of the British Isles, or whether it includes the Gauls, or whether it includes modern nations where people identify as Celtic.

    I get that they're designing the civ based on, you know, "Celtic civilization", rather than any particular state. But the resulting civ always comes across as kind of amorphous, and its inclusion precludes the addition of any specific Celtic nations. I'd rather see the Celtic civ split up. I'd be perfectly happy to have Scotland and Ireland in the game as themselves (assuming England is still in as England rather than as Great Britain, and even then Ireland could still be separate). And while a "Gaul" civ would, strictly speaking, also be an amalgam of different tribes that were never really unified, it would at least be more focused than "the Celts" and come across as a more coherent civ. I don't know how people would feel about the ancient insular Celts being a single civ, led by Boudicca, and called "Britannia" or "the Britons" or "Albion" or something like that. I think I'd be okay with it, if it meant the Gauls and the Scots and so on could be doing their own thing.
     
  16. Sagax

    Sagax Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,209
    Not a documentary, but close enough:


    Link to video.


    Back to topic:

    My main concern for the currently revealed Civ6 background is how "obviously 2d" they seem. Civ5 also has plenty of leaderscreens that are nothing but a 3d leader model on a 2d background.

    However, compare this:

    Spoiler :


    to this:

    Spoiler :


    The background is not as detailed in Teddy's case, and on top of that it's overall darkened, with that awkward dark space of nothingness on the right. The lighting on Teddy's model makes no sense given the background. Cleopatra's screen has the same issue, although in her case one could claim that her scenery takes place at dawn/sunset. IMO if they just add some more detail to the backgrounds and tweak with lighting in the upcoming months, it will look much better.
     
  17. OnceAKing

    OnceAKing Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2013
    Messages:
    242
    I think you're more then entitled to your own opinion in terms of immersion.

    But for the wider community I think it is not an adverse change.

    If you look at it from Firaxis's perspective, they see years worth of awesome, well designed modded civs, who are absolutely completely 2D pictures with no audio just a dialogue box. Hundreds of thousands play those mods with no qualms at all. So from their perspective, what if we do just a step above that? It accomplishes a few things

    More time and resources to fine tune civs. Maybe even test different options and not worry about throwing some to the side.

    More Civs to develop. Maybe we can have waves of civs, in between expansions

    More Civ leaders for existing civs

    and most importantly

    More options for Modders, who've started to be able to mod 3D leaders towards the latter half of the life cycle of Civ 5 and it will allow them to continue to do that without having to adapt the background. They can just throw together a google image and tweak it in photoshop. You could argue it grants greater immersion for mods.

    Ultimately, I play CK2 with unsophisticated 2D images. When it comes to strategy, graphics are not entirely important. Its not like a shooter where you're simulating an ACTIVE experience. I'll grant that CIV is an entirely different game in many ways and has a higher budget and did set a standard with Civ 5. But given the tradeoffs, I think this step back is acceptable.

    Now if they treated this like sports game, and took a step back or stayed stagnant in nearly every aspect of the game for the sake of saying they released a sequel, then there would be problems.
     
  18. Zaarin

    Zaarin My Dearest Doctor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    5,704
    Location:
    Terok Nor
    Very strongly agreed. As I said before, the matte painting idea could work just fine--if the matte painting were more detailed and looked more concrete and less abstract. The darkened vignette look really spoils the whole thing.
     
  19. Monado

    Monado Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    737
    Great comparison Sagax. Catherine's background had nothing much at all going on, in terms of character interaction and movement compared to someone like Harold. However it does an amazing job of making it look as if she is actually part of the game world.

    Removing leader backgrounds is a mistake as Cleo and Roosevelt just feel like they are suspended (along with my disbelief) in front of nothing. The flat (and plain ugly) paintings feel like something completely separate from the leaders and don't serve any purpose.

    I personally would gladly wait for a delay in release date for them to create Civ 5 like backgrounds. The current implementation is so terrible I could care less if any leader images at all are in the game. Immersion is already ruined.
     
  20. DeutschDachs

    DeutschDachs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    978
    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    I mean I get that the leader backgrounds have no impact on gameplay and are just an extra bonus... But what's wrong with wishing for the same amount of effort put into a previous game?

    If the leaders were static and not animated would that also be passable? It's okay to be disappointed in something jeez. Most of us are going to buy the game regardless I don't know why people are up in arms because some are going to miss a feature that was done very well in the previous game. It's a $60 game and we're scolding people for expecting 3D animation in 2016 when the 2010 version had it? Crazy.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page