A problem with 2d leader backgrounds

[Quarz]

The backgrounds in Civ V were okay, but IMO often immersion breaking for me. Much prefer a more abstract background. Tokugawa having meetings in a grassy field when his capital is a desert metropolis... LOL.

Agree on that. On top of that in Civ5 the backgrounds felt of different quality - technical and immersion wise.

In general I never understood, why the backgrunds had to be animated - it did not add anything to the game if you see ... for example a burning fire close to the swedish Leader. It was just like "Hey look, we can do that - so we do". No additional information about the game progress; nothing about the relations, nothing about the age the Civ was in or about peace/war... just nothing. Always the same. Thats why it felt pointless to me. And thats one of the reasons why I think, it is better done in this "cheaper" 2D way, as long the background will not interact with game progress. And even IF...

 

[Svip]

No mention of Civ3's leader portraits? For some reason, Civilization III's leader portraits remain a favourite of mine; I particular like how they change as we progress through the ages. As much time and effort went into the Civ5 portraits, it never made sense to me that they stood in front of the same fields throughout time. Or that Washington had a globe in 4000 BCE.

My preferred solution would be leaders changing style according to their times as well as their governments (like the advisers in the background in Civ1). And then the background would be on the map, near where you 'meet them'.

And of course maintaining the screen and advisers, so you can make well-informed decisions:

Spoiler :

I always found it ridiculous in Civ5, that the game demanded you could remember every civilisation you've declared a friendship with, because the game wouldn't warn you if you were about to go to war with one when another civilisation asked.

Please, diplomacy is not like a random meeting, it's a long process with advisers to weigh in on every offer and decision. The fact that Civ5 tried to make it seem like a random encounter was completely weird to me.

 

[nunor]

God, no. Civ3 protraits are so, so ugly...

As much time and effort went into the Civ5 portraits, it never made sense to me that they stood in front of the same fields throughout time. Or that Washington had a globe in 4000 BCE.

-"He's a guy who lives 6000 years"
-"That makes sense"
-"...and has a globe"
-"What?! That doesn't make sense anymore!"

 

[Svip]

God, no. Civ3 protraits are so, so ugly...

I concur that they are ugly, but it's the philosophy behind their design I appreciate, specifically that the leader's portrait changes as time passes.

-"He's a guy who lives 6000 years"
-"That makes sense"
-"...and has a globe"
-"What?! That doesn't make sense anymore!"

Civilization has always been about immortal leaders. I am willing to accept that. But the fact that the leaders apparently don't change to the world around them, seems odd. Or at the very least proves why the Civ5 leader screens were always a futile effort.

They could never do it fully and the immersion would always be broken. Civilization is not a realistic game, and let's not pretend that it is. So let's at the very least have some fun with it.

I can see some appreciation for the Civ5 screens, particularly some of the animations. But I'd rather have that time and effort was spent on other parts of the game.

I appreciate where Civ6 is going with the new leader screens. As cool as it would be having the background similar to the field, grassland, forest, tundra, etc. tile you've just met their warrior unit in, I can appreciate the 2D palette paintings.

 

[toft]

-----

 

[katipunero]

What problem? Civ 5's realistic graphics and moving backgrounds in the diplomacy screen, among such other unnecessary doodads, killed what made civilization an immensely enjoyable game to play.

 

[Ikael]

Understandable quip, but it is a very, VERY minor thing. Flavour in strategy games comes fromgame mechanics, not graphics. Also, I would gladly take 2D backgrounds if that would mean era specific backgrounds a la Civ 3 *fingers crossed*

 

[EulerMcE]

2D backgrounds and stylisation are fine if they're redirecting their efforts, but the backgrounds they're currently using just look crap and a bit incoherent.

 

[jlc22]

I also prefer the current direction of Civ VI leader screens over Civ V's, and I also really hope they do the changing backgrounds with changing eras as has been mentioned here. They don't need to go the full BE route and have the 3D models change (clothing and accessories) IMO. I also agree with a lot of the comments about the backgrounds being too dark, especially Teddy's!

 

[toft]

-----

 

[Mustakrakish]

I also prefer the current direction of Civ VI leader screens over Civ V's, and I also really hope they do the changing backgrounds with changing eras as has been mentioned here. They don't need to go the full BE route and have the 3D models change (clothing and accessories) IMO. I also agree with a lot of the comments about the backgrounds being too dark, especially Teddy's!

Nah... yes they do, they do need to go "full BE" route IMO. That would be inconsistency itself to have changing backgrounds, while wearing 20th century suit throughout. I'd also have no problem them not having backgrounds altogether BE style, but I'm fine either way.

BTW guys, don't know about you, but I'm 99% sure the backgrounds we saw are placeholders. Why? While Cleopatra's background seems like maybe (very weak maybe) it could be her sole background on release, Teddy's seems to be very much off. Seems more abstract than Cleo's and a bit different in style maybe. Although I approve, it doesn't make sense to me to have one 2D background. Why would they bother with the background at all? Why not go BE route? I think the cried for (by some) 3D backgrounds are coming (meh) OR they're going with era changing backgrounds, which would be inconsistent if clothes don't change. If they however do stick with just one 2D background, those we saw are surely placeholders. Everything about Teddy's background screams "placeholder".

 

[darko82]

BE has no backgrounds, which is even worse than 2D backgrounds. I don't mind if they are 2D or 3D as long as they are not dark (red) as hell.

 

[Mustakrakish]

I don't see how that is worse, to each his own.

 

[Scaramanga]

I like the focus on the leader itself. Eventually the background will have to melt into a 2D landscape since you can't render an entire city or beach behind someone.

 

[Larsenex]

You said yourself.

"You got used to civ5 standards for years"

That's your excuse.

Sure, they look nice, but that's all they offer. Immersion in a game like Strategy, well, It's a complicated topic tbh.

However, I see no reason for them to blow so much budget on those advanced backgrounds only for the player to EVENTUALLY get tired of it after the first few meetings, and end up skipping the dialog completely.

I mean, some people enjoy sure.

But personally I prefer they don't blow their budget on look if it means they can spend that budget on makign the game more stable and more balanced.

^^ I am with Bear on this one. I would rather they have graphix take a back seat to game play, stability and polish.

As others have pointed out the way it is being done sacrifices immersion (in my opinion) for the possible flexibility of more leaders per civ.

Lets wait and see how things pan out with further gameplay videos.

 

[darko82]

I don't see how that is worse, to each his own.

Backgrounds are meant to give some flavour, atmosphere etc. They can represent some symbol. And I want to enjoy them in full screen.

 

[Staler87]

I'm probably in the minority on this one, but I would prefer they just put a work of art, preferable famous, for the leader-head and then make way more civs. It would improve load times, we would have way more civs, and it would be better for modders. It would probably be, in many cases, a closer representation of what the leader actually looked like (a dark skinned Cleopatra?) and t could result in some very cool choices.

They are never really going to accurately represent the leaders so they might as well save the space, the time, and put some art up. Realism Invictus (mod for civ IV) did this very nicely.

 

[Lord Tirian]

I like the focus on the leader itself. Eventually the background will have to melt into a 2D landscape since you can't render an entire city or beach behind someone.

Actually, given how they really upped the detail on the maps and buildings to facilitate the little wonder movies... I'm surprised they don't just zoom into the map, using the leader's actual capital as background.

Given the camera work they already had to do for the wonder movies, this feels like a logical extension. Maybe with a shader/filter on top of it to match the lighting of the leader.

 

[Staal]

There is no problem with 2d background. They just take less resources to produce.

 

[SemperFi2382]

Actually, given how they really upped the detail on the maps and buildings to facilitate the little wonder movies... I'm surprised they don't just zoom into the map, using the leader's actual capital as background.

Given the camera work they already had to do for the wonder movies, this feels like a logical extension. Maybe with a shader/filter on top of it to match the lighting of the leader.

That would be kind of cool actually.