About The Graphics of Civ VI

[Gorbles]

Eh, eyes didn't evolve to look at polygons. They're good at recognizing any pattern after a period of training. Case in point, VI's visual language is hardly without a learning curve: despite all the professions of being able to recognize terrain features without icons, the map we got is a huge mess.

Not that there's anything wrong with messes. Also, the post you are replying to isn't about technical quality, it's about style: so they are not confusing style with anything, just addressing style - you are misreading them.

The poster specifically talked about the detail in the texture(s), among other things. Nor did I ever claim anything about eyes and polygons.

I appreciate this is an open forum, but I'm not going to waste time getting bogged down in a semantic tangent with someone else over a topic I'm debating in rather precise terms already.

 

[bladex]

only thing i don't like is the hills they are too damned small. when a rainF is on one it's near impossible to tell if a hill is there to build a mine instead have to keep using mouseover to see and it's 5 sec delay is annoying.

 

[avguy2]

The style has been a huge let-down. Can't get used to Civ VI looking cartoonish. On Civ V your world looked "epic", CiV VI is more like "kinda cute". Not a good fit for the game.

 

[Oregano]

I can tell from that screenshot alone you're not running the game at it's highest detail settings (where I know for a fact that the CiV screenshot has everything maxed as far as possible and possibly even has a modded zoom level - I did some comparisons of my own when that was flying around), though it could just be the aliasing that's throwing me off.

You're also missing the often-made point that while the art style is a particular way, the detail and / or technical quality is something else entirely. As an easy example, look closely at the building textures in CiV or even BE (though they're better there, I think the alien aesthetics hold up better under a zoomed view than the little boxes in CiV do) compared to the building textures here.

The use of primary colours (and large colour blocks) is for pattern recognition, it doesn't have to have anything to do with realism or a lack of detail. This is art theory that even Valve ascribes to (back when they released their DotA 2 design guide in PDF format).

You were right about the graphics settings - I had missed the Terrain Quality, which you can see on the inset in the screenshot below is now set to high. The rest of it is just a straight screenshot from the game - no "modded zoom levels." And, the game still looks like a cartoon. Which it is..Screen Shot here.

As for art style - no I'm not missing the point, that is my point. I don't like the cartoony art style. At. All. It is a huge turn off to an otherwise well done game, I would prefer something that favored more realism, as I mentioned in my post above, at least on a par with the Battlefield franchise. I think that would have given the game a fresher, more real feel to the history that it's playing with, instead of the Saturday morning / phone app cartoon approach they chose.

And the reason you use primary colours and large colour blocks is because you are marketing to kids.

 

[Gorbles]

No, it's basic design theory. Clarity of gameplay.

A hyper-realistic super-detailed piece of chainmail armour might please you (individually, personally) more, but it isn't going to be distinguishable from the other hundred variants of ring and chainmail present throughout history.

You're entirely allowed to dislike the art style - I never argued against that. I argued against you mixing up art style and technical detail. If you're not doing that, then that was my mistake!

The competence of the art on display is incredible, the detail, moreso. The style is entirely up to subjectivity. Remember your original point revolved around a "lack of detail" in determining what "cartoonish" stood for.

 

[LanguishViking]

I don't mind the cartoony graphics.

What I mind is that it is hard to see villages, greyed out units, which tiles are improved and which aren't, which tiles have hills and which haven't, it's hard to tell if you selected the support unit or the combat unit quickly enough, it's hard to click the city bombard button.

 

[Roxlimn]

The style is always a personal preference, but at this point in our technology, I think how they did this is outstanding. We're not yet at a point in time when a completely photorealistic render will get past the Uncanny Valley. So you always have to compromise on the execution. You have a best-at-the-time thing rather than a complete product. For instance. Super Mario Brothers today is STILL a pretty game and it's still a blast to play. They executed within the limitations of the technology, in a manner that's timeless.

Even Civ V is done in a painterly, rather than in a realistic fashion, and the leaders are animated in a mixed style with some obvious compromises.

I think what they've done with Civ 6 will be timeless. It is a perfect rendition of an artistic vision that even better tech will not improve. So I think it was a wise decision.

As for being cartoony - well, I'm an old man at this point and I have no desire to appear older or more mature to other people or to myself. I left the desire to appear mature when I was 30, so now I enjoy all the cartons openly and without embarrassment or self-consciousness. Animation isn't for kids. It's for everyone. And there's nothing wrong with something that appeals to everyone.

 

[BURTMACKLINFBI]

...it's hard to see which tiles are improved and which aren't?

seriously?

 

[LanguishViking]

...it's hard to see which tiles are improved and which aren't?

seriously?

yeah, luxuries, also pillaged tiles

 

[Roxlimn]

I think you're mainly thinking of Incense. Cotton is fairly dramatic in terms of iconography when it's improved, and are most of the luxury resources.

Lessee:

Cotton
Incense
Chocolate
Tea
Diamonds
Gympsum
Dyes
Truffles
Silver
Citrus
Mercury

Am I missing anything?

I can plainly see Mercury and Citrus on the overland map, and the iconography for improved and unimproved version are extremely different. Mercury is purple unimproved. Improved, it turns silver. It's pretty dramatic. Tea and Citrus get tamed into plantations. Also fairly dramatic. Incense is the only one I can't tell at a glance and even then I can tell if I pay a bit of attention.

 

[GIO888]

The graphics remind me of Civ II, seriously. They are designed for smartphones, because us Veterans from the gas and oil operated smoking and fuming machines from the 1990's with the handcranks aren't the only buyers, and Firaxis also know us hard partyers from the '70's and '80's are gonna start dead-parroting on them pretty soon. They need to attract new players.

Anyone else think the battleship looks like a T-Rex head? This is what we've come to..... and where is the sentry toggle for units? Now they just sleep and get forgotten or I remember them when I get told they just got killed.

 

[Roxlimn]

They're actually very similar to Civs 3 and 4. But saying these graphics are designed for smartphones is just weird. They have way too detail for such a small screen. Not even Civ Rev will do well on a smartphone.

 

[lordhaw]

I've come to like the art style on Civ 6. It was a bit jarring coming to it after Civ 5 but overall it was not too bad. Certainly there are some things with it, like hills are not distinct enough but overall the tiles represent what they are supposed to represent and it works. We are playing a strategy game and there needs to be some suspension of disbelief in a strategy game as what is in each hex represents something but doesn't have to be totally accurate in that representation. So long as you can tell what it is by looking at it, that should be fine. I like the animation bits on the maps and in the districts, though I wish there was a bit more distinction in architectural styles in the districts between civs, just for some variety. For me though the graphics in a strategy game don't need photorealism. But an art style isn't going to please everyone. I found the units in Civ 5 to be just as cartoony looking as the ones in Civ 6, but the world graphics use a far bolder colour palette than civ 5 which is partly why they stand out so much. I'm used to it and am enjoying the game, good enough for me.

 

[Roxlimn]

One of the wonderful changes for me is that I can tell in the overland map which tiles are getting worked and which are not. Farms that are getting worked are green and lush. Farms that are not lie fallow and brown. Mines that are being worked smoke with activity and have moving mine carts. Mines that are not are inactive and lifeless. It's pretty nice to be able to tell all that without going into a city layer.

 

[apostaganha]

Its just me that hates the graphics??

for stranger than it seems i prefer civ 5 graphics 1000x more!

 

[Aldor]

Yeah, its just you

JK, do a search around this forum, and you'll find lots of posts concerning the graphics.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

I didn't think it was great at first. I found it cluttered. Now, with so many hours in, I know exactly what I'm looking at/for, so apparently it grew on me.

 

[TomKQT]

I like the graphics, the details, the animations.
I however don't see how this was meant to remove the problem of CivV where you couldn't easily see what's going on (which tile is improved, pillaged etc.). It's also in CivVI and I have to use tooltips to see what kind of district it is and even whether there is a hill on a particular hex!
I also hate fog of war, it looks soooo similar to the efect of completely unexplored areas, especially on oceans. I very often have to carefully check whether I already was there or not.
Plus I absolutely hate the minimap, I can never find anything on it. The colors are badly chosen, you cannot see what's explored and what not (still talking about the minimap) and when yesterday China and Germany together declared war on me (huge island plates map), it took me few minutes to find at least Germany on the map (I gave up trying to find China).

 

[bladex]

real gamers don't play games for the GFX only

 

[beorn]

I like the graphics, the details, the animations.
I however don't see how this was meant to remove the problem of CivV where you couldn't easily see what's going on (which tile is improved, pillaged etc.). It's also in CivVI and I have to use tooltips to see what kind of district it is and even whether there is a hill on a particular hex!
I also hate fog of war, it looks soooo similar to the efect of completely unexplored areas, especially on oceans. I very often have to carefully check whether I already was there or not.
Plus I absolutely hate the minimap, I can never find anything on it. The colors are badly chosen, you cannot see what's explored and what not (still talking about the minimap) and when yesterday China and Germany together declared war on me (huge island plates map), it took me few minutes to find at least Germany on the map (I gave up trying to find China).

+1

As the game was coming out, I kept reading howls about cartoonish graphics. That has never been a problem for me. Some like the repair graphic is a little over the top, but I don't mind at all. What I do mind is the lack of clarity. All that you say, and more. When moving a settler or religious unit, I can't see anything. I often cannot see hills.

For a really good game, they made some really poor decisions involving graphics.