Art Style Poll - Are you turned off or excited?

[brianshapiro]

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).

There are a lot of places where you both state something which is arguable, and which people have different opinions on, as fact, and also where you generalize about people who disagree. I'm not trying to turn anything around on you; it's just true.

Whether realism suits Civilization has nothing to do with what was done with the past games : either it suits it, or it doesn't. So I consider that a bit of a side issue. There were past Zelda games with more realistic elements than Wind Waker, but I thought the Wind Waker style suited Zelda. Even if Civ V was a total break from every game before it, it could be that it was the style that suited the gameplay. That's that.

But it is true the past civ games always had a somewhat serious style to the map, and within the technical limitations and the limitations of abstraction, were relatively naturalistic. Civ II and Civ III had a pretty serious map style; figures didn't have exaggerated proportions, like the devs are intentionally doing in Civ VI, and have stated that they're doing. Civ IV units had normal proportions. It had more saturation than Civ V and the units were represented larger. You can't say the Civ IV map was more cartoon like than the Civ V map.

And we're talking about the map here; since in some games, the leaderheads were cartoony, or the games had jokey elements in them like Elvises and whatever. Even in that case, I think you could really say in all the games that was even an intentional stylistic choice, rather than a product of dealing with limitations the best they felt they could. Civ I was working with limited graphics capability. Even if we're talking about Civ IV, the models weren't that good technically.

However, its really obvious that they introduced a lot of stylization into the CivRev series. Its there to an even greater extent than in Civ6. Huge feet and hands and, huge swords. Intentionally stylized trees. Along with I even more exaggerated features and gestures in leaderheads than Civ4 had, such as huge hands. The reason people think CivRev was a departure from the rest of the series isn't because of some "knee jerk" reaction, its because of intentional design choices by the developers of that game, that I'm sure the developers would acknowledged if we asked them.

 

[Gorbles]

There are a lot of places where you both state something which is arguable, and which people have different opinions on, as fact, and also where you generalize about people who disagree. I'm not trying to turn anything around on you; it's just true.

Whether realism suits Civilization has nothing to do with what was done with the past games : either it suits it, or it doesn't. So I consider that a bit of a side issue. There were past Zelda games with more realistic elements than Wind Waker, but I thought the Wind Waker style suited Zelda. Even if Civ V was a total break from every game before it, it could be that it was the style that suited the gameplay. That's that.

But it is true the past civ games always had a somewhat serious style to the map, and within the technical limitations and the limitations of abstraction, were relatively naturalistic. Civ II and Civ III had a pretty serious map style; figures didn't have exaggerated proportions, like the devs are intentionally doing in Civ VI, and have stated that they're doing. Civ IV units had normal proportions. It had more saturation than Civ V and the units were represented larger. You can't say the Civ IV map was more cartoon like than the Civ V map.

And we're talking about the map here; since in some games, the leaderheads were cartoony, or the games had jokey elements in them like Elvises and whatever. Even in that case, I think you could really say in all the games that was even an intentional stylistic choice, rather than a product of dealing with limitations the best they felt they could. Civ I was working with limited graphics capability. Even if we're talking about Civ IV, the models weren't that good technically.

However, its really obvious that they introduced a lot of stylization into the CivRev series. Its there to an even greater extent than in Civ6. Huge feet and hands and, huge swords. Intentionally stylized trees. Along with I even more exaggerated features and gestures in leaderheads than Civ4 had, such as huge hands. The reason people think CivRev was a departure from the rest of the series isn't because of some "knee jerk" reaction, its because of intentional design choices by the developers of that game, that I'm sure the developers would acknowledged if we asked them.

I make very sure to not state things as fact unless they're observable by the knowledge that we have, so unless you've got something to actually debate there just drop the vaguaries, eh? My PMs are always open if people want to discuss things without heading the thread down a pedantic quote chain.

Yes, the Revolution games had more stylised graphics than the main series. I don't see anyone debating that. To say that Civilisation VI has a more stylised approach is most definitely arguable.

Yes, the extent of the stylised graphics in earlier Civilisation games varies, but apart from CiV I would never call any of them strict adherents to realism, sorry. Even CiV tried to emulate a soft-brush, almost painted kind of look. A great look (I sank enough hours into it, for my time spent on video games. Not always a lot compared to other players though ), don't get me wrong, but also stylised in its own way. As all art approaches tend to be; there's very little photorealism in these kinds of games (the closest you get is Paradox's Crusader Kings and / or Europa Universalis and that's all heavy UI with little actually down-to-the-ground animation).

However, you're kinda misrepresenting what I was on about by the kneejerk reactions. This debate here by definition isn't any kind of kneejerk because you're sitting there trying to justify your stance. Whether or not that originated from a reactionary response is anyone's guess at this point, and thus pointless to try and shout about. In general (that's a generalisation you take issue with, I guess?) the reactions that have expressed the least-analytical dismay have also been the most-reactionary. In general. There are exceptions, but they are but that. As much as I want to canvas the post history of this subforum, all I can do is ask you to read the threads (all eight or so of them, as I've done) with a critical eye. They're there, the responses I'm on about.

Anyhow we're getting a bit meta, so to wrap this up r.e. art style and comparisons to Civ: Rev. Yes, comparisons can be made. But so can comparisons to past Civilisation games because the mechanics are most undoubtably - if the press is to be believed, of course - from the main franchise. So comparisons can be made all round. The art style might be the most reminiscent, but perhaps we should move on from that endless circle of logic and discuss why people think it is bad, instead of saying it's bad and then having people call that kind of statement out (repeatedly).

 

[Minor Annoyance]

People lost their minds when this was revealed.

Spoiler :

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.

Extrapolating from this we can assume that civ 6 will have too much ocean and require a long period of underwater archeological exploration before you can finish a game.
Also bird people.

 

[brianshapiro]

Yes, the extent of the stylised graphics in earlier Civilisation games varies, but apart from CiV I would never call any of them strict adherents to realism, sorry. Even CiV tried to emulate a soft-brush, almost painted kind of look. A great look (I sank enough hours into it, for my time spent on video games. Not always a lot compared to other players though ), don't get me wrong, but also stylised in its own way. As all art approaches tend to be; there's very little photorealism in these kinds of games (the closest you get is Paradox's Crusader Kings and / or Europa Universalis and that's all heavy UI with little actually down-to-the-ground animation).

Right, they wouldn't be able to pull off a photorealistic look well, so its not done. But photorealism is not what anyone is talking about. Realism doesn't mean photorealism. Also, obviously, the units can't be life size; everything in the game is representation, so that's also another way its not going to be real-to-life. But the point is not about 1-to-1 realism, but about creating a realistic atmosphere and feel to the game. Versus, say, going in the other direction and intentionally making it feel stylized or cartoon like, or game like.

Another aspect of this is a serious atmosphere and feel to the game, versus a non-serious one, which different Civ games handle differently in some areas, but where CivRev also departs from rest of the series in striking a particular tone.

I've tried to avoid explaining why I think realism is more suited to the game, because this discussion has been meta, but here are a few reasons,

- It creates an immersive atmosphere that draws you in and makes you feel you're in the epic sweep of real history. I think Civ V was good at that to some degree.

- Its more suitable to historical scenarios that involve more brutal circumstances. So, for example, if the civ games were ever to introduce things like terrorism, chemical warfare and biological warfare, it would just clash with a cartoon style. I doubt they're including those things in the base game, though I'd like to see them, and if not in the base game, then in mods made by players. We're going to see nukes, and bombings, which I think clash a bit. Alpha Centauri couldn't have had things like nerve stapling without a serious style. I have trouble imagining these things with the Civ VI graphics, but they could have fit into Civ V.

- Its really more than just a board game. The idea that its only a boardgame is used to downplay pushes for realism in aesthetics or gameplay. But Civ I was originally planned as a sim game that played out like SimCity. It was made strategic and turn-based when the original plan didn't work out well. The tone is set in the first Civ even with the intro graphics of the globe becoming populated, asking you to set forth to build a civilization that "stands the test of time." The fun of the game has always been partly about being drawn into an alternative re-creation of history, watching sprawling metropolises come to life, watching your ships brave the oceans, and so on. If it was just about strategy and boardgame tactics, there are probably better games than Civ than that. Part of the fun of the Civ series is the sim aspect. The aesthetics should match the intent.

Though again, its not all about the cartoon look, either. Like realism can mean different things, so can cartoonish. Cartoon looks can be pretty, or tacky. I think the thing a lot of people don't like about mobile games -- talking about mobile games in general and not Civ VI -- is they tend to be pretty tacky looking. I don't think Civ VI is as bad as some things that people compare it to -- and its better than CivRev -- but there are things that turn me off about it. Other things I like, such as the wonders, and the ships, and some of the water effects.

 

[Ryika]

Sadly the "Looks bad but I'm optimistic that it can be fixed."-option is missing in the poll, so I had to go with "I'm not completely turned off but not exactly impressed".

I'm pretty happy with what i ended up with rather quickly after spending a bit of my time in Photoshop (aside from the over-saturated and way too dark yellow):

Spoiler :

...so I think there's a solid basis there. Even if they don't decide to change the horrible color scheme, modders should be able to turn it into something that looks good to me, because the models seem to be pretty solid and beautiful.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Sadly the "Looks bad but I'm optimistic that it can be fixed."-option is missing in the poll, so I had to go with "I'm not completely turned off but not exactly impressed".

I'm pretty happy with what i ended up with rather quickly after spending a bit of my time in Photoshop (aside from the over-saturated and way too dark yellow):

Spoiler :

...so I think there's a solid basis there. Even if they don't decide to change the horrible color scheme, modders should be able to turn it into something that looks good to me, because the models seem to be pretty solid and beautiful.

That actually looks really good! I hope they tone it down a bit like that.

 

[tat501]

Sadly the "Looks bad but I'm optimistic that it can be fixed."-option is missing in the poll, so I had to go with "I'm not completely turned off but not exactly impressed".

I'm pretty happy with what i ended up with rather quickly after spending a bit of my time in Photoshop (aside from the over-saturated and way too dark yellow):

Spoiler :

A

...so I think there's a solid basis there. Even if they don't decide to change the horrible color scheme, modders should be able to turn it into something that looks good to me, because the models seem to be pretty solid and beautiful.

That looks a lot better I must admit. Still dislike the building and unit models - cartoony browser game style rather than epic classical style stuff. I have great hopes they can be modded.

 

[Battlehelm043]

Extrapolating from this we can assume that civ 6 will have too much ocean and require a long period of underwater archeological exploration before you can finish a game.
Also bird people.

I totally just realized they ripped that song straight out of Conan the Barbarian.... circa 1982.... See for yourself hahahahaha!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1GkvdbMzI0

It's towards the end of the clip btw...

 

[whyidie]

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.

Nor do I.

CivRev2 resembles Civ4 more than 5.

Civ4 :

Spoiler :

CivRev2:

Spoiler :

Civ5 :

Spoiler :

 

[brianshapiro]

CivRev2 resembles Civ4 more than 5.

Just in terms of saturation, and even then, CivRev2 is more saturated.

Stylistically, CivRev is a departure.

 

[dexters]

Texturing, Low poly models, square tiles, color palette, UI interface, border shading are all the same or similar between CivRev2 and Civ4.

Actually my first reaction when CivRev2 was announced was thinking it was a mobile Civ4 game, until... I read more and it was just reskinned CivRev done on the cheap. It's a terrible game BTW.

Which Is why I'm somewhat dubious about people insisting Civ6 is closer to CivRev2 than Civ4 despite the overwhelming visual evidence. In the back of my mind, I'm thinking these people are trying to smear the game by association based on 3 screenshots. But maybe I give people too much credit.

 

[brianshapiro]

Which Is why I'm somewhat dubious about people insisting Civ6 is closer to CivRev2 than Civ4 despite the overwhelming visual evidence. In the back of my mind, I'm thinking these people are trying to smear the game by association based on 3 screenshots. But maybe I give people too much credit.

Because of conscious stylistic choices the designers have confirmed like exaggerating proportions of units that were also present in CivRev, and because the style of the Civ4 map was still naturalistic even if crude.

Maybe people who think it looks inspired by CivRev aren't engaged in a conspiracy to smear the game.

 

[Westwall]

Merely an occult plot to bring about the utter annihilation of all sentient life.

 

[brianshapiro]

Merely an occult plot to bring about the utter annihilation of all sentient life.

They will all perish in the flames of Ra, once his eye has gazed across the land and lit the world afire.

 

[dexters]

They will all perish in the flames of Ra, once his eye has gazed across the land and lit the world afire.

I'm game. make that happen.

 

[Westwall]

Ra

Pffft. Minor league god.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Congratulation to the OP, you couldn't raise a less relevant question !

I voted "i'm not interested by the art style", because I very much like Cell Shading that supports usually cartoony graphics (Zelda the Wind Waker), as long as it's technically impressive. (= beautiful by that day standards)

I appreciate however how units seem more distinguishable on the map without the need of iconic icons now that I have read it. If any, I would have made them "one man" and even bigger, but that has nothing to see with the art style. (Although I prefer (by far) Civ2 lenght representative units icons, which make the overall game less occasionnally "questionnable". (for example no distances distortion due to : other represented elements on different scales like cities or resources, that were here just iconic representations, more like tags, warnings, infos ; number of cities ; distance of cities from each others ; size of the map ; size of the world ; ranged attacks) Not to say I doubt 3D animated models are just that, but they are less of a real game with actual epic tableaux or tin soldiers, as an ironic wink at the child inside each player or even real life General. But that has nothing to see with art style either.)

No, the most relevant and definitive thing about those graphics is not the art style, definitely not. It's the graphical complexity, the technical quality. It deters too much with what I expected of a new Civ generation overall and says much of the developers ambition. After the nice graphics of Civ5 in pretty much every aspect, one could have dreamed of an even yet far superior immersion, like an indusputable evolution. Relevant details, like sun glances on armors, true grass moving to the wind, more visible resources like small game, migrating herds, slopes, living tribes or at least evidence of human life outside our borders, etc... abundance, immersion, dream ! And while I'm at it, i'm not the only one who can dream, so I yet trusted the developers to surprise me. The 4 poor horses stuck in their tile, exactly like in Civ5, same color, same position, hurt me so hard. What a sad joke !

 

[Fred_Bear]

The art style and workmanship is fine with me, but the proportion of things seems quite out of wack. The district - improvements like the market and schools etc. look too big. From what I can gather from the info provided I guess this is to make these easily distinguishable at a glance and to translate to an iconic shape when zoomed out where a chart like map will come into play. Though I think it will be a cool feature, it does make the visual when zoomed in as shown in screens, revealing the graphic to look too iconic in my opinion.

My hope is that the small buildings like around the edge of the city itself and also shown along the edge of the market will over time and as the population of the city rises fill in the gaps between neighbouring tiles. I think that would make a nice visual indication of the size / population of the city too. If the actual size of these districts improvements was reduced to say 70% of what they are now it would also allow space for these little skirting buildings too fill in over time as the population grows too.

Anyway I'm not overly worried, but if it could be improved that's what I'd suggest.

Just my 1.46 cents US, for what its worth.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Congratulation to the OP, you couldn't raise a less relevant question !

Oh man and here I thought I was so cool for having started such a popular and heated thread! [emoji14]

 

[T.C.Douglas]

I really like the detail of the overall map features. I mean, the forests look decent now, and especially looking at tiles with trees and whatnot in the background is much better than in Civilization V.

However, the colour scheme, to me anyway, looks a little too bright, and the terrain doesn't seem to have that much detail (the surface I mean). I have read that they were looking more for a artistic style here, but it doesn't look like actual terrain. I looked at some pictures of saturation and colour correction that users have done in Photoshop, and it looked more eye-appealing to me than what was presented. The surfaces of the grassland, plains, desert, and the hills and mountains (not the geometry of them) had much better detail in Civilization V than what is presented here, maybe they will make some alterations later. The water looks incredibly nice nevertheless, and the coastlines and cliffs are awesome!