A problem with 2d leader backgrounds

Status
Not open for further replies.
Agreed.
I simply can`t understand why some complain as if somehow they simply would not be able to maintain concentration because of a pretty background??

That makes no sense. How did they even play Civ 5 before then? Did they fail every game because they couldn`t concentrate on the Leader? If that was the case, why did they never complain about it before?

Because it wasn`t a problem.

Will you be unable to play Civ VI with the 2D backgrounds? Are you going to fall into a deep depressive state because of the gloomy backgrounds or are you going to be unable to conceive of the concept of leaders and civilizations because the leader screen isn't full 3D? If not, why are you complaining now?

... because you have a criticism about something that has a more subtle negative effect. People pointing out issues with brighter backgrounds are also criticizing something that has a subtle negative effect.
 
Will you be unable to play Civ VI with the 2D backgrounds? Are you going to fall into a deep depressive state because of the gloomy backgrounds or are you going to be unable to conceive of the concept of leaders and civilizations because the leader screen isn't full 3D? If not, why are you complaining now?
Because to some players the current backgrounds do feel like a step backward in comparison with civ 5, and even without fancy 3D elements they could come up with more detailed 2d backgrounds with better lighting (*cough* civ5 vanilla *cough*)?

I think we can all agree that in the grand scheme of things leader backgrounds are a minor concern. Nobody here is claiming that (s)he will not buy the game or the game experience will be completely ruined by that. However, this is a good debate on what players expect from a leaderscreen, and in much broader terms - what kind of trade-offs players are okay with when a new game is being developed with a clearly limited budget.
 
Because to some players the current backgrounds do feel like a step backward in comparison with civ 5, and even without fancy 3D elements they could come up with more detailed 2d backgrounds with better lighting (*cough* civ5 vanilla *cough*)?

I think we can all agree that in the grand scheme of things leader backgrounds are a minor concern. Nobody here is claiming that (s)he will not buy the game or the game experience will be completely ruined by that. However, this is a good debate on what players expect from a leaderscreen, and in much broader terms - what kind of trade-offs players are okay with when a new game is being developed with a clearly limited budget.

I've said from the get-go that I much prefer them to cut back on graphics and invest that money into gameplay.

After all, it's a visual that will in the grander scheme of things last you about 10-15 seconds as nobody spends several hundreds hours looking at the screens themselves. They have a very short novelty span. They're fun for the first 10 times seeing them but then they get very alright, very quickly. I had taht with Civ 5.
 
I think we can all agree that in the grand scheme of things leader backgrounds are a minor concern. Nobody here is claiming that (s)he will not buy the game or the game experience will be completely ruined by that. However, this is a good debate on what players expect from a leaderscreen, and in much broader terms - what kind of trade-offs players are okay with when a new game is being developed with a clearly limited budget.

Yeah. This was what I was getting at in my post, basically. For the most part, everyone in this thread is voicing a minor and fairly subtle concern. So, no one should be disregarding other people's opinions just because they're not a major issue or because they don't understand the concerns people are having.
 
This is Art Composition 101; difference in value (light and dark) is a basic tool used to direct the viewer's eye around the scene.

I think the altered image is beautiful as a piece of artwork, but as a game screen it draws the user's attention to the wrong element of the screen. Also, the bright part of the background is exactly where the UI overlay is going to be, which would also be a problem. The background is dark for a reason.

I totally agree here. I really like what I see for leaders screens in Civ6.

Also, since the backgrounds are 2d, it should be easy to mod anything you like there.
 
I've said from the get-go that I much prefer them to cut back on graphics and invest that money into gameplay.

Anything that hooks new players brings in money. Sure, they could never focus on aesthetic gimmicks, and store page art, and all that payroll just burned up on interviews, game conferences, livestreams, and then - only think! they'll surely be improving core mechanics forever and not leaving the game stillborn after a patch and expansion like BE.

Yes, investing in gameplay improves player retention and long term DLC sales too - but if we are looking for a glitter-guts-balance model of revenue sustaining success, it's impossible not to call it CiV, spinning globes and all.

---

I'm with the "would accept 2D, but these are too dark" crew on this one.

1 Even royal portraits as seen in a google search have a lot more red flush and glow.
2 But you can't equate what works in a painting with what works on an LCD screen anyway. Royal portraits were only conceived as physical objects that must be viewed in person: huge, take up one's whole vision, reflecting external light. There's no such thing as a "dark" painting, and there's no true void, even the black is something. Royal portraits aren't a valid model to approach game art.
3 Leader screens shouldn't be depressing. I don't want to feel like I'm in a murderer's basement being lorded over by a cartoon clown Teddy Roosevelt every time I try to trade a banana! I want to feel at ease.
4 You can't advocate and praise an art style for "calling attention to what matters" while ignoring people who say "I don't even want to look at this because it's ugly": those people obviously won't have their attention called to anything, they'll just not be looking at the ugly dark clown murder basement zone.
 
Will you be unable to play Civ VI with the 2D backgrounds? Are you going to fall into a deep depressive state because of the gloomy backgrounds or are you going to be unable to conceive of the concept of leaders and civilizations because the leader screen isn't full 3D? If not, why are you complaining now?

... because you have a criticism about something that has a more subtle negative effect. People pointing out issues with brighter backgrounds are also criticizing something that has a subtle negative effect.

Silly comment that thinks it`s pseudo-college clever when really you`re just completely missing the point on purpose.

I don`t fall for classroom pretensions, m8 and I won`t answer such a dumb question/statement.

Moderator Action: Please be civil and do not flame others.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Silly comment that thinks it`s pseudo-college clever when really you`re just completely missing the point on purpose.

I don`t fall for classroom pretensions, m8 and I won`t answer such a dumb question/statement.
What is the point that you think I am missing on purpose?

My questions in the previous post were rhetorical (which I thought was clear by the fact that I responded to the last one) so don't answer them. But I actually don't know what point I am supposedly intentionally missing.
 
I see both sides of this argument.

The darker backgrounds are a tried and tested method of keeping the viewer focused on something else. In this case, the brilliantly animated leader. Its a deliberate choice that takes into account the diplomacy menus and focuses the art team efforts on creating leaders that can literally "stand on their own".

That said, Its hard to argue with those defending that colorful backgrounds help to contextualize each leader and their Civ. I also agree Civ V proved this can be done without them being too much of a distraction. Backgrounds are arguably too dark and minimalistic, not covering the whole screen and making it difficult to even identify what is being shown in them.

In any case, I'm sure this will be one of the first thinks tacked by the modding community.
 
Now THAT`S the kind of thing i`m talking about. I am also an artist and know the power of imagery even to something as apparently unnoticable as a background. Such a small change to the background can have a huge effect on how a Leader comes across. Firaxis needs to change their cheap backgrounds.

Dark =/= Cheap

However, this is a good debate on what players expect from a leaderscreen, and in much broader terms - what kind of trade-offs players are okay with when a new game is being developed with a clearly limited budget.

How do you figure? Because backgrounds are dark?

Too weird.... they have simplified everything :undecide:

Hope to as they presented from game until now to be only in alpha stage and in development.

Simplified everything? So... backgrounds? That's everything?
 
Now THAT`S the kind of thing i`m talking about. I am also an artist and know the power of imagery even to something as apparently unnoticable as a background. Such a small change to the background can have a huge effect on how a Leader comes across. Firaxis needs to change their cheap backgrounds.

p.s. Also the fact that some say the background might take away the view from the main Leader is silly. This would be true if the Leader was also a static painting, not moving, but the fact it will move and TALK, means the background will never override the viewer`s attention on the leader. The background will be passively noticed.

Sheesh. Some of you really don`t seem to know how imagery works.
1. You being an artist doesn't make you automatically right, sorry.

2. You literally ignored Arioch linking art theory. I'm not sure it's us that "don't understand imagery". That kind of language only leads to personal attacks, too.
 
Exactly. They're too gloomy, it's almost a mood breaker. And because the map screen is so vivid and bright, the contrast is even more striking. Here you are, playing on lavish green plains, sailing on deep blue waters, when suddenly... you meet this fellow in a dark and lugubrious scenery. You'd say his kingdom is decadent, no?

I'm no digital artist, so excuse my lack of skills, but I did a quick alternative version of Victoria's screen (imagine it made by Firaxis's superb artists). Which version would you say is more vibrant and more adequately conveys the vigour of Victoria?

8WdScgIl.jpg


WbNnh8Kl.jpg

Oh this is SO much better!

I agree with the '2D is OK but this is too dark' comments. If a fully-animated 3D backdrop is too much, I at least want to feel there is some connection between the leaders and their background.
 
In my opinion, with the vibrant animations we've already seen from Cleo and Victoria, the dark backgrounds are completely unnecessary to draw the eye to the leader--our eyes are instinctively drawn by movement, and it looks like we can expect these leaders to move a lot. Brighter backgrounds that provide context would not distract from the leader; I hope mods work better offline in Civ6 than they did for me in Civ5, because I'm sure a modder can create better backgrounds than these horrible dark red-washed things Firaxis has made--as nunor's Photoshop mockups already demonstrate.
 
Check out the Chiaroscuro art technique. It may help *enlighten* some people. :P

Thanks to AriochIV for "discovering" the technique. Very sophisticated stuff. :)

Chiaroscuro, ( from Italian: chiaro, “light,” and scuro, “dark”) technique employed in the visual arts to represent light and shadow as they define three-dimensional objects.

Some evidence exists that ancient Greek and Roman artists used chiaroscuro effects, but in European painting the technique was first brought to its full potential by Leonardo da Vinci in the late 15th century in such paintings as his Adoration of the Magi (1481). Thereafter, chiaroscuro became a primary technique for many painters, and by the late 17th century the term was routinely used to describe any painting, drawing, or print that depended for its effect on an extensive gradation of light and darkness.

In its most dramatic form—as in the works of those Italian artists of the 17th century who came under the influence of Caravaggio—it was known as tenebrismo, or tenebrism. Caravaggio and his followers used a harsh, dramatic light to isolate their figures and heighten their emotional tension. Another outstanding master of chiaroscuro was Rembrandt, who used it with remarkable psychological effect in his paintings, drawings, and etchings. Peter Paul Rubens, Diego Velázquez, and many other, lesser painters of the Baroque period also used chiaroscuro to great effect. The delicacy and lightness of 18th-century Rococo painting represents a rejection of this dramatic use of chiaroscuro, but the technique again became popular with artists of the Romantic period, who relied upon it to create the emotive effects they considered essential to their art.

http://https://www.britannica.com/art/chiaroscuro
 
Check out the Chiaroscuro art technique. It may help *enlighten* some people. :P

I'm not sure how we have reached this point, but trying to justify the dark backgrounds behind fully 3D animated cartoons based on the existance of a Barroque technique called Chiaroscuro is going too far, way too far.
 
Whatever technique, it is not fun to see all backgrounds dark and blurry. It might work in a painting, but not in the game with many leaders that need to be interesting and give us variety. Those backgrounds feel lifeless. They all feel the same. I can't see them at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom