Among Civ4, 5 and 6's wonders' completion scene and visual presentation, which one do you prefer?

[How to know]

In Civ4 we have standalone animations which show the construction of wonders from design sketch to completion, showing them in their full glory all on themselves, Civ6 used construction animation too but moved it into the map so we get to see how good they looked in the urban context. In Civ5 we have something completely different, it has a simple 2D portrait oil painting art pop-up with a narrator in the background.
I'm curious about what everyone thinks is the best approach for Civ7 to adopt. A 2D presentaion or a 3D one? If 3D, should it be a standalone animation or an in-context animation? Personally, I like Civ5's art, 'cause Civ6's models look a bit tacky to me, and 2D arts are much more modder-friendly than building models.

I started playing from Civ IV so I only talk about stuff I know about.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

I love the way Civ VI Wonders are integrated to the landscape, would be awful to go backwards.

 

[ezzlar]

I really liked Civ2:s wonder videos!

 

[pokiehl]

Civ 6 for sure. Wonders in Civ 6 were one of the best visual accomplishments of the game. The in-engine wonder videos, the camera angles, the quotes, the impressive and awesome models that stand proudly on the map.

and 2D arts are much more modder-friendly than building models.

I say this as a modder: I disagree entirely with the notion that the game should sacrifice quality or complexity of art for the sake of making things easier for modders to do. I think the premise is false anyway. In Civ 6, if you want to make a wonder without a model, you can—it’s just going to look and feel different from the game.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I enjoy the splash screens, I think they're nice, but I also obviously enjoy the animaiton, 99% of my Civ 6 screenshots are entirely by how beautiful the view was from a wonder (Eiffel Towel especially since I think it has the highest distance/offset from the wonder so you see a lot around it)

 

[Uberfrog]

Civ 6's gradually constructed wonders look so good on the map, I'd definitely keep them.

 

[JollyRoger]

I really liked Civ2:s wonder videos!

This. They should bring back a few things from Civ2 like the Wonder videos and advisors.

 

[Quintillus]

VI's approach definitely looks the best.

That said, I also see the point of having the option for a less animation-intensive option, such as Civ III's wonder images, for modding. I'm not a graphics person at all, and I've successfully added wonders to Civ III. In Civ VI? Forget about it. By having both a fully-animated-3D-on-the-map option and a 2D option, VII could optimize for both the visual appearance in the base game, and for modders who have the historical knowledge to make scenarios, but not the graphical expertise to create those animations.

I doubt we'll get this approach since it's more work, but I am hoping Firaxis makes some decisions to make life easier for non-technical modders.

 

[AriochIV]

I liked the Civ 6 construction animation, but I'm not sure that would work very well translated to the grittier Civ 7 art style. They might have to switch to a pre-rendered animation.

 

[Lord Lakely]

IV and VI were the best. Some sort of animation.

 

[pokiehl]

I liked the Civ 6 construction animation, but I'm not sure that would work very well translated to the grittier Civ 7 art style. They might have to switch to a pre-rendered animation.

Interesting viewpoint... I'm certainly no modeling/graphical expert, but I feel like how good it will look in-engine (vs rendered) will depend a lot on lighting. I hope we stick with in-engine though. Felt really immersive.

 

[Nikolai II]

IV and VI were the best. Some sort of animation.

Agreed.

 

[Glassmage]

V is better. Everything about V oozes regality, elegance, and dignified.

 

[Leyrann]

I really liked having the complex wonder videos in earlier editions. Honestly, if that could somehow be combined with VI's on-the-map concept, that'd be perfect imo.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I would take an animation over a static image any day.

 

[Vahnstad]

Not always a fan of 6's visuals, but for the wonders it's no contest. Always VI.

 

[<Nexus>]

Well, maybe I'm too much a fan of 4 but I think that is the most immersive. 5's approach is just a simplified version of 4.
I understand why many may like 6's version but I still feel 4's is better: both as a player immersion and from modder's point of view. There a lot of great wonder movies for 4's custom wonders. Just check out my signature.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Well, maybe I'm too much a fan of 4 but I think that is the most immersive. 5's approach is just a simplified version of 4.
I understand why many may like 6's version but I still feel 4's is better: both as a player immersion and from modder's point of view. There a lot of great wonder movies for 4's custom wonders. Just check out my signature.

I'm surprised that you prefer Civ 4 to Civ 6, because Civ 6 allows you to get the joy out of building it because the surrounding is not a pre-chosen background but instead built near your own lands so you have the satisfaction of seeing your other work around. Eiffel Tower is one of my favorite Wonders to built in 6 because of it as it gives you a huge view of your Empire.

 

[pokiehl]

I'm surprised that you prefer Civ 4 to Civ 6, because Civ 6 allows you to get the joy out of building it because the surrounding is not a pre-chosen background but instead built near your own lands so you have the satisfaction of seeing your other work around. Eiffel Tower is one of my favorite Wonders to built in 6 because of it as it gives you a huge view of your Empire.

Yeah, nothing about Civ 4 is visually immersive to me. I think Civ 4 is incredibly ugly and goofy looking all around. Even in 2005 its graphics were controversial.