Art Style Poll - Are you turned off or excited?

[Westwall]

I think I'd need to see what the interface looks like before I can say for sure how I feel about the rest.

I liked the art deco theme of Civ 5 but now they say they're going for more of an explorer motif with compasses and the like so I'm waiting for screenshots and gameplay videos of that.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I think I'd need to see what the interface looks like before I can say for sure how I feel about the rest.

I liked the art deco theme of Civ 5 but now they say they're going for more of an explorer motif with compasses and the like so I'm waiting for screenshots and gameplay videos of that.

I agree. The interface could compliment the map art perfectly.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

Excited. I love Wind Waker!

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

[miaasma]

yeah, the more i look at these screenshots, the more i feel this art style is regressive to the franchise

i mean if we're judging the civ games now in 2016, all of them except V look outdated graphically. but i remember way way back when i started playing civ III (it was my first civ game) i found myself enjoying the graphic style and having no complaints about the map texture or colours or anything. i suspect this is because, for the time, the graphics were not considered bad at all

the same goes for civ 4. it certainly took a turn for the cartoony but not excessively so and it still, to a degree, retained the grainy, interesting look of civ 3. and again, for its time, it looked fine. i never felt like i was playing something that could have been developed a decade ago

then civ 5 comes out and graphically it blows the other games out of the water, because it's supposed to. it's a sequel; it's meant to improve on its predecessors, and it did (graphically anyway; i know a lot of people have mixed feelings about how much it improved gameplay wise but that's for another thread)

so it's through this lens that i'm really unable to appreciate this art style for a game being developed in 2016 for the PC. again, i'm doing my best to withhold judgment until the game is actually released and gameplay can be viewed, but i can't say i'm not disappointed by what i'm seeing right now. and for me, with these games, that's a first

edit: i voted 4 because it best describes my reaction, but i certainly wouldn't call it "flat-out crap". it's not terrible and disappointing graphics aren't necessarily a dealbreaker for me with a strategy game anyway

 

[Gorbles]

Realism isn't automatically better than heavily-stylised graphics.

Heavily-stylised graphics aren't automatically regressive when compared to more "realistic" alternatives.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Realism isn't automatically better than heavily-stylised graphics.

Heavily-stylised graphics aren't automatically regressive when compared to more "realistic" alternatives.

That's true but (to take this further as a reference point) if they went with 8-bit Nintendo style, it would be both regressive and stylized. I think the point a lot of people are making is that this style seems regressive and that the graphic capabilities today can provide for a better quality of stylization that doesn't look regressive. I'm not sure I agree with the idea that it is regressive but I think that's what some posters are saying.

 

[Gorbles]

That's true but (to take this further as a reference point) if they went with 8-bit Nintendo style, it would be both regressive and stylized. I think the point a lot of people are making is that this style seems regressive and that the graphic capabilities today can provide for a better quality of stylization that doesn't look regressive. I'm not sure I agree with the idea that it is regressive but I think that's what some posters are saying.

Yes, but they're not using an 8-bit palette / pixel art style, are they?

The game is obviously full 3D-modelled in a way that even CiV wasn't (CiV uses a lot of cleverly-designed textures to make them pop out against the base tile textures - woods being a key example here). The technology on display, if we're going simply by polycount, could well be higher (look at the city detail compared to the really badly-textured box spam present in CiV cities).

I did use the word "automatically" on-purpose, so your example of 8-bit graphics doesn't actually change or counter what I was trying to say. Even pixel art (modern pixel art) isn't necessarily regressive compared to 3D art. You can get good and bad pixel art just like you can get good and bad 3D art.

But what's worse is that people seem to be saying that the graphics are technically inferior based solely on the colour palette and art direction on display, when the two are completely separate from one another. As people have proven by desaturating the promotional images before patting themselves on the back for such a mighty feat.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Yes, but they're not using an 8-bit palette / pixel art style, are they?

The game is obviously full 3D-modelled in a way that even CiV wasn't (CiV uses a lot of cleverly-designed textures to make them pop out against the base tile textures - woods being a key example here). The technology on display, if we're going simply by polycount, could well be higher (look at the city detail compared to the really badly-textured box spam present in CiV cities).

I did use the word "automatically" on-purpose, so your example of 8-bit graphics doesn't actually change or counter what I was trying to say. Even pixel art (modern pixel art) isn't necessarily regressive compared to 3D art. You can get good and bad pixel art just like you can get good and bad 3D art.

But what's worse is that people seem to be saying that the graphics are technically inferior based solely on the colour palette and art direction on display, when the two are completely separate from one another. As people have proven by desaturating the promotional images before patting themselves on the back for such a mighty feat.

The 8 bit example was just an example but I see what you're saying. I guess my question then would be why use such high pixel count to achieve a graphic style that looks so simplistic? Can you not achieve that look without high poly counts? Why not use the technology available to create stylized art that doesn't look like a mimic of something older? Mind you I'm not really sold either way on the art style I'm just trying to understand the viewpoint.

 

[dexters]

But what's worse is that people seem to be saying that the graphics are technically inferior based solely on the colour palette and art direction on display, when the two are completely separate from one another. As people have proven by desaturating the promotional images before patting themselves on the back for such a mighty feat.

People lost their minds when this was revealed.


Link to video.

Still one of the most beautiful games to this day and the style is actually back in fashion with indies.

Nerds can be real dicks when it comes to their fandoms. It's sad really.

 

[Gorbles]

The 8 bit example was just an example but I see what you're saying. I guess my question then would be why use such high pixel count to achieve a graphic style that looks so simplistic? Can you not achieve that look without high poly counts? Why not use the technology available to create stylized art that doesn't look like a mimic of something older? Mind you I'm not really sold either way on the art style I'm just trying to understand the viewpoint.

Well to be fair, sorry, I didn't mean to be railing at you - you're being perfectly reasonable here.

As for the "look", we have to bear in mind that these are promotional products and not necessarily indicative of the final look and feel. I don't want to rely on that line though as it's obvious that the art direction isn't going to change overnight. But we could get more detail or somesuch that makes people a little less annoyed by the large patches of single colour.

But to go more technical, no, the look can't necessarily be achieved by using less polys, or less detailed textures, or similar. The units are obviously pretty detailed - people are objecting to the chunky swords, or the chunky shields, or whatever - the polycount here isn't what people are complaining about (specifically). It's just what the posters who don't like the art choose to complain about because of a lack of knowledge.

"well that's cartoony so the textures are obviously simple and the models aren't very complex"

Which is a chain of assumptions founded on a lack of knowledge on the subject matter. And to be frank, I only have a limited understanding of graphics programming, and amateur experience in 3D modelling software. But I do have some, from my days of modding RTS games. Simple doesn't necessarily mean bad quality, and complex doesn't necessarily mean good quality. You can slap a dirt layer on any plain texture and make it look more grimy / muddy / whatever . . . but does that make it better?

It's up to your opinion. Problem is, an awful lot of folks are treating their opinion as unarguable fact.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

A common problem on the Internet lol. I see what you're saying. The funny thing is, I originally really disliked what I saw in the screenshots. I did indeed have a knee-jerk reaction to them. But the more and more I look at them and examine the detail and try to imagine what they would look like in motion, the more I look forward to seeing it in action.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[Thormodr]

I don't mind the graphics. I didn't mind cIV graphics which were somewhat cartooney so these look ok.

Plus, if it enables truly huge maps and sprawling vast empires rather than super realistic graphics with 3 city "grand" empires ala Civilization 5 then I am on board with Civ VI's graphics.

 

[Mivo]

I actually like the new art style. Sure, it's game-y, and that is the appeal. It just has more character than the "realistic" style of Civ 5, which I experienced as somewhat sterile (especially after Civ 4). In the end, though, what matters to me are gameplay and depth, not eye candy. Graphics aren't meaningless, but they are not the element that makes or breaks a game for me.

 

[brianshapiro]

People lost their minds when this was revealed.

Still one of the most beautiful games to this day and the style is actually back in fashion with indies.

Nerds can be real dicks when it comes to their fandoms. It's sad really.

And I liked the Wind Waker style, and hate the pseudo-realistic style they use for other Zelda games; but dislike the Civ6 style they're showing off. I don't have a grudge against cartoons, or something. That has nothing to do with my opinion on the art style.

It's just what the posters who don't like the art choose to complain about because of a lack of knowledge.

Do you believe its all posters who don't like the art?

It's up to your opinion. Problem is, an awful lot of folks are treating their opinion as unarguable fact.

So are you, dude. Which is alright; people form definite opinions on things because they think their opinions are right. That we express our opinions as facts is normal.

At any rate, I dislike the style mainly because I find it tacky.

The fact that its a cartoon look is secondary, although I think the more realistic feel of Civ V is more appropriate to the series -- Just as (btw) I think a cartoon feel was more appropriate to the Zelda series. I'm sure that could be the basis of a good discussion. I stated in an earlier comment that I think its a step back from the Civ V style aesthetically -- not technically, but aesthetically.

Of course, this is all based on the screenshots I've seen, and I don't dislike everything about it. I'll judge again when its released, and of course, even if I don't like the style, if I find the gameplay to have good enough improvements to make it worth the upgrade, I'll upgrade. I'm still skeptical about the gameplay as well, though. So I'm going to be waiting until demos. Until more comes out, I'm not that excited.

If we're getting into the technical aspects of it, as others have pointed out, there's no reason to believe they chose the style because it takes up less processing. The models seem more detailed than before, and they're adding features like day and night lighting. My experience in Civ is that most of the slowdown in late game was due to AI processing. I think it makes most sense to say the developers favored the style, for whatever reasons they had.

 

[Calyxx]

I do remember seeing the first screenshots of CIV, and being extremely disappointed at the cartoon-like style. However, CIV turned out to be an amazing game, the art style worked, and I got used to it before 0 AD of my first game.

The art here seems much better than CIV to me; it may be cartoony, but it is also very crisp and clear. It wouldn't have been my first choice for style, but I'm confident that if the game is good people will easily adapt. At any rate, I know I will.

 

[Akka]

It looks too mobile-like to me, but on the other hand I like clean and colourful so that part is good.

Also, I'm in the minority but I really disliked Civ5 graphics, which felt dead, cold and more like a painting, so I actually much prefer these ones.

 

[dexters]

It looks too mobile-like to me, but on the other hand I like clean and colourful so that part is good.

Also, I'm in the minority but I really disliked Civ5 graphics, which felt dead, cold and more like a painting, so I actually much prefer these ones.

That;s interesting since Civ Rev 2 looks like Civ4. Soo does that make Civ4 retroactively look like a mobile game

 

[brianshapiro]

That;s interesting since Civ Rev 2 looks like Civ4. Soo does that make Civ4 retroactively look like a mobile game

Maybe he doesn't think CivRev2 looks like Civ4. I don't.

 

[Lexicus]

Maybe he doesn't think CivRev2 looks like Civ4. I don't.

Nor do I.

 

[Gorbles]

So are you, dude. Which is alright; people form definite opinions on things because they think their opinions are right. That we express our opinions as facts is normal.

At any rate, I dislike the style mainly because I find it tacky.

The fact that its a cartoon look is secondary, although I think the more realistic feel of Civ V is more appropriate to the series -- Just as (btw) I think a cartoon feel was more appropriate to the Zelda series. I'm sure that could be the basis of a good discussion. I stated in an earlier comment that I think its a step back from the Civ V style aesthetically -- not technically, but aesthetically.

Of course, this is all based on the screenshots I've seen, and I don't dislike everything about it. I'll judge again when its released, and of course, even if I don't like the style, if I find the gameplay to have good enough improvements to make it worth the upgrade, I'll upgrade. I'm still skeptical about the gameplay as well, though. So I'm going to be waiting until demos. Until more comes out, I'm not that excited.

If we're getting into the technical aspects of it, as others have pointed out, there's no reason to believe they chose the style because it takes up less processing. The models seem more detailed than before, and they're adding features like day and night lighting. My experience in Civ is that most of the slowdown in late game was due to AI processing. I think it makes most sense to say the developers favored the style, for whatever reasons they had.

I don't think I ever said "the graphics in this game are unarguably great and anyone who disagrees is obviously childish and plays Clash of Clans". That's an amalgamation of all the things said about the art style (reversed, obviously) so far. So no, you can't turn this one around on me, sorry!

Why do you think that realism suits Civilisation, when the series has never really revolved around strict adherence to realistic graphics? The closest we got was CiV. Every other game has had stylistic influences and / or been limited by the technologies of the time. While it might not have always been present on the world map (due to sacrifices the art team will have had to make for readability, in Civ II and III particularly before the graphics got fleshed out a bit with IV), the leader portraits and other aspects of the actual graphics (outside of the UI) have always had more of a non-realistic approach.

Heck, even the original Civilisation had Tudor-era Elizabeth I backed by modern dudes in khakis and shades (depending on your government choice). That's not realistic, and the pixel art was most definitely styled to suit the recognition of the leaders (Lizzie was very much Tudor-style painting-inspired, for sure).