About The Graphics of Civ VI

[dexters]

Tbh I have no problems with how Civ 4 looks or Civ6

I prefer more realism so Civ 5 is where I lean but the fidelity just wasn't there in Civ 5 so late game can look messier than usual. But to be fair late game in most civ games looks like a mess.

What I really want is this kind of detail in a zoomable world map.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

What makes Civ 6's art style cartoony? Gee I don't know...ever played Candyland?

Or seen Kung Fu Panda?

? what an odd thing to say. Cartoons don't require more pixels. Just look at the models for the buildings in Civ 4 and compare them to Civ 6. It's 100% different art style.

If I didn't know what game I was looking at in that screenshot, my first guess would be World of Warcraft.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

If I didn't know what game I was looking at in that screenshot, my first guess would be World of Warcraft.

Do you consider that to be a bad thing?

 

[Menzies]

If I didn't know what game I was looking at in that screenshot, my first guess would be World of Warcraft.

Recognising things quickly on sight is a skill that is hard earned. Keep at it, you'll get better.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

Do you consider that to be a bad thing?

No just making an observation. It wouldn't have been my first choice for art style for this particular game. It surprised me when I first saw it. I always imagined Civ would evolve in a more realistic direction as computer graphics became more advanced. The world definitely looks more alive than Civ 5 which is a big plus.

Edit: if we changed the art style of reality then I would be much happier with the new look . First world problems are a b....

 

[TruthfulCake]

I quite like the art style, judging from all the pre-release material. The sparse trees are slightly disturbing, yes, but the amount of detail is incredible. I imagine that if the colors were more muted or drab it would be hard to distinguish the details when zoomed out, and it would be bad for the new direction they're taking, where you have to be able to tell districts apart in a glance. Besides, it's not like we don't have towns with colorful buildings in real life. I mean there are plenty of them, and they all look so pretty and no less real than other cities.

The Civ V art style would have left me fumbling much longer when trying to manage the districts, so I'm really grateful for their decision. The slightly caricatured style of the leaders might be a by-product of the art direction, and I don't see much problems with that since otherwise they would look out of place. The pronounced features aren't even necessarily a bad or wrong thing - civilizations historically depict their leaders with exaggerated proportions because they make the characters more memorable.

I don't see how all the sensible decisions amount to an "epic fail" like so many detractors are saying. But I suppose it is human nature to complain about new things.

 

[thecrazyscot]

I posted this in another thread, might as well post it here:

Why don't we just look at all the games' graphics in sequence?

Civ 1:

Civ 2:

Civ 3:

Civ 4:

Civ 5:

Civ 6:

 

[TekJansen]

I really miss the leaf trees of CiV

 

[Zaarin]

I always imagined Civ would evolve in a more realistic direction as computer graphics became more advanced.

I for one am glad it didn't. Realism and style are not mutually exclusive, but so many games these days have become so obsessed with ultrarealism that they lack any kind of style or art direction whatsoever. I'd love to see a renaissance of more stylized games as "realism" floods the market, just like in traditional art the invention of the camera led to the rise of semi- and non-realistic movements like Impressionism and the Post-Raphaelites. Fortunately, indie and small studio games continue to deliver games with beautiful art styles, even as AAA devs continue to focus on "realism" and sequels.

 

[rschissler]

I really miss the leaf trees of CiV

The worst thing about the Civ 6 graphics has to be the trees.

 

[TekJansen]

The worst thing about the Civ 6 graphics has to be the trees.

They look like the plastic trees of the Enchanted Forest board game :/

 

[kaspergm]

Yeah, they really need to fix the trees, and different colour on forest and rainforest FGS. In Civ5, you could readily spot Jungles because they were much darker than normal forests. In Civ6, it's just impossible to see which is which as soon as you're just zooming out marginally.

 

[Zanteogo]

The worst thing about the Civ 6 graphics has to be the trees.

As far as the landscape goes, certainly.

 

[ThERat]

In Civ 3 we had terrific modders that would create awesome graphics for units and landscape alike. Blue marble did add something nice to Civ 4. Hope we get some modders to change the graphics here or add some variety for people who prefer a different style.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

I for one am glad it didn't. Realism and style are not mutually exclusive, but so many games these days have become so obsessed with ultrarealism that they lack any kind of style or art direction whatsoever. I'd love to see a renaissance of more stylized games as "realism" floods the market, just like in traditional art the invention of the camera led to the rise of semi- and non-realistic movements like Impressionism and the Post-Raphaelites. Fortunately, indie and small studio games continue to deliver games with beautiful art styles, even as AAA devs continue to focus on "realism" and sequels.

Maybe I'm getting the wrong impression but it seems the art style that the developers chose is what bothers people. Not necessarily that it's not realistic. I was expecting to be wowed when I saw the first screenshots but instead I felt disappointed.

 

[nzcamel]

The world definitely looks more alive than Civ 5 which is a big plus.

I tend towards realism myself; but given a choice will take the aliveness of VI over the dry realism of V.

The worst thing about the Civ 6 graphics has to be the trees.

Funny, I always thought that of the splotches of paint called trees in V. I missed them swaying in the wind :/

Yeah, they really need to fix the trees, and different colour on forest and rainforest FGS. In Civ5, you could readily spot Jungles because they were much darker than normal forests. In Civ6, it's just impossible to see which is which as soon as you're just zooming out marginally.

As someone who's a bit colourblind I found the jungles & forests in V confusing at first glance. The different texture gives it away on closer inspection; but I def prefer the more distinct look between the two in VI.

 

[Zaarin]

Maybe I'm getting the wrong impression but it seems the art style that the developers chose is what bothers people. Not necessarily that it's not realistic. I was expecting to be wowed when I saw the first screenshots but instead I felt disappointed.

We're talking about the same thing: most people who are complaining seem to want a more realistic style. They use the word "graphics," but they mean "style." Whatever one's opinion of Civ6's style, it would be extremely difficult to find fault with the graphics, which are certainly very impressive.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

Funny, I always thought that of the splotches of paint called trees in V. I missed them swaying in the wind :/

This was one of the first things I noticed when I started playing V. It's funny how little things can jump out at you like that.

 

[stealth_nsk]

If I remember correctly, trees in Civ5 are not 3D objects, but 2D sprites. So they have many details with low graphics load, but no advanced 3D features like camera rotations will work with them.

 

[GhostSalsa]

I still hate the way districts have the same visual footprint as cities, and cities in the late era just never stopped being ugly, compact bundles of skyscrapers. Even if you didn't like CiV's grittiness, it shined in the late game, it effected drama and order from all that unbridled sprawl, whereas VI's art inverses that.

But the last two months of refinements made ancient->medieval cities look lovely, and certainly a lot less like Clash of Clan forts.

Good or bad, we can agree from the let's plays that the visual mandate that supposedly inspired all this stuff-enbiggening, readability, has been obliterated in the current form. Nothing's really very discernible on the map to new eyes, especially wrt resources improvements and trained eyes were going to be able to tell more subtle things after repeated plays no matter what approach the aesthetic took. "Oh it's their commercial district, I can't point out why, but I've been playing this game for 1000 hours so nah I don't need the icons."

Meanwhile, the appended VI strategic view turned out to be really attractive, it actually deserves the name "stylized"*, and it's... readable. I anticipate playing a lot or all of the time in that.

*Please can we not elevate VI's look to "stylized." "Cartoonish" is the apt, perfect word, for form that has soft reality but no formal excess: it exaggerates symbolic features, but is as beholden to The Symbol of an Arm as realism is to The Grit of an Arm. Yes, it can still be beautiful. The last months in VI's fleshing-out have taken us from Last Airbender season 1 to Last Airbender season 3, thank god. But if you need to know what "stylized" would look like, just think of the Beginnings storyline in Korra.