A problem with 2d leader backgrounds

[Eagle Pursuit]

Three things:

1) This is a matter of taste. Neither side is objectively better than the other.

2) Firaxis probably isn't going to change how they do backgrounds, especially since they will be so easy to mod.

3) Let's just take a poll on the subject and be done with it.

 

[Thormodr]

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.

No, not really. Civilization 5 had Art Deco. Civ VI has an art direction, as well.

 

[DeutschDachs]

When it comes to these backgrounds vs Civ Vs I think one is pretty objectively better.

If you care or not is subjective. I mean there's people in this thread pining for Civ II static leader pictures just so their mods won't look so out of place

 

[Plus Ultra]

No, not really. Civilization 5 had Art Deco. Civ VI has an art direction, as well.

I never said otherwise. Your point being?

 

[King Jason]

When it comes to these backgrounds vs Civ Vs I think one is pretty objectively better.

That's not how that word works. Some people think civ5's backgrounds are better, some think civ6's are better. It's subjective.

You're trying to compare two things that have drastically different qualities and, more importantly, styles, and say that one is "better". By what metric? People's definitions of "better" are different.

For example, you can say -objectively- that civ5's backgrounds have more color.

You can say -objectively- that civ6's backgrounds tend to be darker than civ5's.

It is subjective as to whether or not those qualities combined with others make either background "better" than the other. To put it another way; You can't really have an objective conversation about which painting is better when looking at a monet and a picasso - the same dynamic applies here.

 

[DeutschDachs]

That's not how that word works. Some people think civ5's backgrounds are better, some think civ6's are better. It's subjective.

You're trying to compare two things that have drastically different qualities and, more importantly, styles, and say that one is "better". By what metric? People's definitions of "better" are different.

For example, you can say -objectively- that civ5's backgrounds have more color.

You can say -objectively- that civ6's backgrounds tend to be darker than civ5's.

It is subjective as to whether or not those qualities combined with others make either background "better" than the other. To put it another way; You can't really have an objective conversation about which painting is better when looking at a monet and a picasso - the same dynamic applies here.

Comparing the Civ VI backgrounds with Picasso and Monet that's pretty rich. I suppose you could argue a black background is better than Civ Vs backgrounds too. They could draw stick figures for leaders and you could argue they were better than either Civ V or Civ VI leaders. It would be silly, but I guess you could argue it.

So fair point I guess you're right. I can't imagine arguing Civ VI has better backgrounds aside from the perspective that the higher quality backgrounds ate up time and resources which could have been used on gameplay. But I suppose there's no accounting for taste

 

[Mustakrakish]

Don't have anything against dark backgrounds, but I still think those are placeholders. Not that I care either way. I want era specific clothing, but that is not happening.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Don't have anything against dark backgrounds, but I still think those are placeholders. Not that I care either way. I want era specific clothing, but that is not happening.

I don't think they are, you don't make placeholders that look finished. Placeholders are blank icons (like the Civ logos we've seen, or the iconless thing we seen when the B-Roll came out, that's placeholder)

I just don't deem this as a step-back. We've complained about many things and I think if they cut on Art they don't destroy the game, which to me, that idea is laughable, it's not a game about aestethics.

And don't give me any of the immersion stuff either, because immersion is also through gameplay.

I've never felt my self immersed with Civ 5. It never seemed to change, it just looked pretty, was tough on my computer and has been impossible to play on hotseat without getting incredibly bored with it.

You need to find the logic in their decision and just accept because its' not going to change.

 

[Chinese American]

The dark backgrounds really are going to be in the long run--after hours (maybe even minutes) of gameplay--depressing, annoying, off-putting, dreadful. Already it makes never want to visit the diplomacy screen. Heck, I might even install a mod to change it before I start my first game.

 

[CaptainUnknown]

The dark backgrounds are great in my opinion, but I also did not enjoy Civ 5 animated ones so I am not on the same page as a lot of you. If I could, I would have it similar to Civ 5 Multiplayer, where it's just the trade box, because I hate being taken to a full screen during my turns, which also lags the game a bit too. This was pretty bad in Beyond Earth RT because of all the diplomatic capital deals.

 

[DeutschDachs]

The dark backgrounds are great in my opinion, but I also did not enjoy Civ 5 animated ones so I am not on the same page as a lot of you. If I could, I would have it similar to Civ 5 Multiplayer, where it's just the trade box, because I hate being taken to a full screen during my turns, which also lags the game a bit too. This was pretty bad in Beyond Earth RT because of all the diplomatic capital deals.

They should just make this as an option for people who would rather play faster and don't care about the animations anymore. I still love backgrounds but I will admit a speedy option could be useful

 

[Mustakrakish]

I don't think they are, you don't make placeholders that look finished. Placeholders are blank icons (like the Civ logos we've seen, or the iconless thing we seen when the B-Roll came out, that's placeholder)

I just don't deem this as a step-back. We've complained about many things and I think if they cut on Art they don't destroy the game, which to me, that idea is laughable, it's not a game about aestethics.

And don't give me any of the immersion stuff either, because immersion is also through gameplay.

I've never felt my self immersed with Civ 5. It never seemed to change, it just looked pretty, was tough on my computer and has been impossible to play on hotseat without getting incredibly bored with it.

You need to find the logic in their decision and just accept because its' not going to change.

I don't know, there's something off about them in the way that they somehow seem unfinished to me, but like I said it doesn't bother me either way.

Not sure what you're trying to say with the rest of the post. If you'd read my posts you'd know I'm one of the last people here who thinks in any way of their art direction as a "step-back", "simplification of everything" and all that nonsense that were thrown around here.

BTW a couple of years ago I wanted a mod in V that changes leader screens to something like VI minus the well animated 3D leaders. Some neutral, maybe abstract background like that, V game start loading screen map for example, maybe with civ icon, something like that with all reference to leaders removed from the game. Leaving leader screen graphics to "minimum" wasn't enough for me

 

[darko82]

What the hell they did with those backgrounds? They are almost completely invisible - under interface. Just more black background than ever before. They made them a lot smaller. It SUCKS. And I HATE this change.

Is there any mod to fix this issue?

 

[Browd]

Moderator Action: Please do not necro two-year old threads. Thread closed.