Art style reminiscent of civ revolution 1 & 2

[MadDjinn]

I don't know how you can say that; the moment I first looked at the new Civ VI screenshots, the very first thing that popped into my mind was "ack, Civ Revolution!"

They're not the same, of course. Civ Rev has much more exaggerated proportions, especially in the units, but they have very similar art styles. You can see the hand of the same artist in the styling of the figures and the trees, and the bright, saturated, minimalist textures. And it IS the same artist.


Civ VI does look a lot more like Civ IV (and Civ Rev) than Civ V. I think that's part of what's throwing people. They've been playing Civ V for so long that they don't remember how saturated and cartoony Civ IV was.

so you agree they aren't the same, but you're 'knee jerk reaction' means that you'll stick with them being similar even with graphical proof that they are different?

the trees look different, the colours are different, the coast line is different, etc etc

yes, they both use colours, great, but that means little because you can easily tell that the quality of the graphics is far superior in Civ VI vs Civ IV.

and since CivRev is more like Civ IV. menh.


I understand initial knee jerk reactions to Civvi graphics for those only playing CivV, but to continue to call it a mobile graphics based game after viewing the differences is, well...

 

[Westwall]

I think that's really the issue here. People are having knee-jerk reactions and finding them hard to shake off.

But then I guess because those 3 screenshots are all we have to go by, this was sort of inevitable.

 

[brianshapiro]

so you agree they aren't the same, but you're 'knee jerk reaction' means that you'll stick with them being similar even with graphical proof that they are different?

the trees look different, the colours are different, the coast line is different, etc etc

yes, they both use colours, great, but that means little because you can easily tell that the quality of the graphics is far superior in Civ VI vs Civ IV.

and since CivRev is more like Civ IV. menh.


I understand initial knee jerk reactions to Civvi graphics for those only playing CivV, but to continue to call it a mobile graphics based game after viewing the differences is, well...

Nah, there's a lot of elements *clearly inspired* by CivRev, even though its not a complete copy of the style. Things a little cartoonier in proportion, color-coding, the water effects. Making the link to CivRev isn't so far gone.

The inspiration is much clearer if you look at CivRev2, where there's a much closer similarity between graphics elements.

Civ4 was never really cartoony and was mainly defined for me as having a lack of an aesthetic, a first crude attempt at 3D.

 

[Westwall]

I would argue SMAC was more Firaxis' first crude attempt at 3D.

By comparison Civ 4 was much more streamlined.

 

[brianshapiro]

I would argue SMAC was more Firaxis' first crude attempt at 3D.

By comparison Civ 4 was much more streamlined.

SMAC was all pixel art except for the terrain elevation, wasn't it?

 

[Westwall]

It was actually their first foray into isometric 3-D rendering for both the terrain and units.

Which they were only too happy to show off in greater detail in the unit customization screen.

 

[brianshapiro]

It was actually their first foray into isometric 3-D rendering for both the terrain and units.

Which they were only too happy to show off in greater detail in the unit customization screen.

Oh ok, I don't remember exactly how much 3-D they used, but I remember a lot were pixel graphics. At any rate, in Civ4, all the terrain, forests, cities, and everything else were 3D, and it had very little sophistication in terms of lighting. The bright flag and border colors, even though I thought the borders were too much and the colors they used not very pretty, helped create a sharp distinction against the graphics.

By the time they released Civ4: Colonization, the graphics had become more sophisticated and the colors became deeper, and the color differences in the terrain more subtle. So they greatly improved in the technical aspects of the graphics between the original Civ4 release and Civ4: Colonization, and it clearly shows in the art style.

 

[Westwall]

I thought I noticed a more washed out look in BtS than in the original Civ 4.

In all honesty, I wasn't a fan. I preferred the brighter colors and deeper contrast.

 

[m15a]

Nah, there's a lot of elements *clearly inspired* by CivRev

No, that's not clear. That may seem likely if the only sources of inspiration for any Civ game is past Civ games. But there are many non-Civ game inspirations that could inform an art style.

Judging the art on it's own, the distinction is probably irrelevant, but if you're going to extrapolate and say that the games must also be similar in gameplay or overall mood, it makes a big difference.

 

[brianshapiro]

No, that's not clear. That may seem likely if the only sources of inspiration for any Civ game is past Civ games. But there are many non-Civ game inspirations that could inform an art style.

Judging the art on it's own, the distinction is probably irrelevant, but if you're going to extrapolate and say that the games must also be similar in gameplay or overall mood, it makes a big difference.

Lets just say, given the similarity between certain visual elements like the trees and swordsmen so on, and the same water effects, and other design choices, I wouldn't be surprised at all if someone said "lets make it closer in style to what we did in CivRev, because of A, B, and C" (Not the same as CivRev, but closer). And given that I understand some of the same people were on art teams for both games, I don't have much reason doubt that happened.

 

[RedBlack]

I think what I don't like are the trees. In Civ V the trees are all together and look like a dense forest.

In the screenshots of Civ VI that they have shown you can see each individual tree so it looks much more sparse. I think that is what bothers me the most...

 

[m15a]

Lets just say, given the similarity between certain visual elements like the trees and swordsmen so on, and the same water effects, and other design choices, I wouldn't be surprised at all if someone said "lets make it closer in style to what we did in CivRev, because of A, B, and C" (Not the same as CivRev, but closer). And given that I understand some of the same people were on art teams for both games, I don't have much reason doubt that happened.

It's definitely possible and, IMO, the reasoning is in the big box of "we don't know yet" (or ever) right now. But since the same people did work on both, it is also reasonable to suppose that the similarities are due to the personal aesthetics of those artists and not a deliberate reference to or development of the Civ Rev style.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

I think the point was that the resemblance is there.

 

[Westwall]

I think what I don't like are the trees. In Civ V the trees are all together and look like a dense forest.

In the screenshots of Civ VI that they have shown you can see each individual tree so it looks much more sparse. I think that is what bothers me the most...

The trees were pretty sparse in pre-Civ 5 titles.

Also you'll notice there are dense forests and jungles in the background of some screenshots.

 

[RedBlack]

I don't think they look more dense, they look as though they are further away. I'll just wait for some video I think, not much sense discussing it now...

The trees were pretty sparse in pre-Civ 5 titles.

Also you'll notice there are dense forests and jungles in the background of some screenshots.

 

[brianshapiro]

Yea, in other screenshots, the trees look fairly spread apart. I think its just the distance here. The buildings in the districts also look fairly spread apart, so they feel odd next to the densely packed cities which have a more realistic feel to them. It gives you the sense of a couple of buildings instead of a district.

Also, I just don't think the stylization of those fir/spruce trees are nice or help the game visually. The smaller shrub trees around some of the buildings I see no problem with; they look good enough.

 

[AriochIV]

so you agree they aren't the same, but you're 'knee jerk reaction' means that you'll stick with them being similar even with graphical proof that they are different?

Two paintings by the same artist are not the same. That doesn't mean they're not similar, or that you can't recognize the art style or the artist. My initial impression was correct: it is the same artist.

To say that Civ VI and Civ Rev are not at all similar (in terms of visual style) is just as false as saying that they're identical.

 

[Gorbles]

Two paintings by the same artist are not the same. That doesn't mean they're not similar, or that you can't recognize the art style or the artist. My initial impression was correct: it is the same artist.

To say that Civ VI and Civ Rev are not at all similar (in terms of visual style) is just as false as saying that they're identical.

Sure, but there's a larger gap between "these are the same" than "these are not at all similar". Urgh, that phrasing is terrible, sorry. Let's see where I go with this train of thought.

They are not the same. This is obvious.

However, people are not saying there are no resemblance. This is something you're projecting onto the people you're debating with (and presumably me, if I'm cast in the same boat as people like MadDjinn for disagreeing with you. Assumption!).

However there is little point saying "they're nothing alike" because that's something nobody is trying. What we're focusing on is the difference even given the apparent similarity in art direction. The difference(s) that people are in general choosing to completely ignore (not you specifically, but this is a general trend that has been observed) in favour of going "oh my this looks exactly like Civ: Rev, these games look very console trashlike". Endless variations on that kind of statement, too. We have what, six threads currently discussing the art direction in this subforum? Some of them are very loaded in their thread title and / or opening statements, too.

Yes, your initial impression was correct in that they have the same art director (not artist, though as the director helps oversee the specific art style implemented in the project this is a relatively moot point. Still, degrees of autonomy and separation exist and ideas are generated from the team, and not necessarily just Brian himself). But that's it. There is nothing further, and that by itself is simply a factoid - there's no real analysis that goes along with that.

But I honestly feel that if we'd actually gotten to actual analysis of the screenshots (as simplistic as they are, lacking UI, etc, et, al), we'd have been able to dismiss all of these kneejerk (and yes, formulating a viewpoint based on three non-final promotional screenshots is kneejerk) reactions a long time ago.

Sadly, we're going around in circles on pedantic details instead

 

[Battlehelm043]

Once again I will re-iterate a point I made much earlier... The problem with the art and what some are calling a "knee-jerk" reaction stems from a bad pitch really. I mean look at it this way; you have a large following which has seemed to strongly enjoy the realism by the past iteration's art style. Fantastic.... Then comes a long period of silence and no interaction with the community to probe and see if a drastic art style change is favorable. Follow that up with a trailer that impresses upon the viewer a very serious tone and then display the art style which will be the new path for this iteration. The community gets tossed into chaos; the minds eye of many fans had the serious art style continuing; and with nothing to ease them into considering this new style, tempers flare.

The current mood is clearly being reflected here and on facebook, as well as in that poll thread. The community sees the 3 screen grabs and deems the art choice from moderately palatable to a major turn off. I have yet to see a large faction arise that says they love this style... BUT I would not pull a Mass Effect 3 and hope my complaining forces a drastic change before release. Don't get me wrong, I dislike this art style choice, but had they(The Leads) done a little ground work prior to announcement instead of a shotgun style surprise I think the majority of this would have been avoided as an acceptable art style experiment. Part of me still hopes that with the lack of screenshots and game play trailers that the art might become more refined, but who knows until they(The Leads) decided to address the concerns directly.

As of now just look at the facebook feed from Civilization... they keep pounding the drum with the same articles/reviews and nothing else. Frankly I believe this is where more of the frustration is bred. I especially felt demeaned when Shirk and Beach broke down the announcement trailer as if it would suffice for the lack of information we will get until June.

In further regards to the art choice, it would seem that the lead art designer for Civ Rev is the lead for this game which would explain why he is comfortable with going this route. I got started with Civ Rev and explored the previous games from there then worked my way to CiV... I can say I feel like I grew away from the art of Civ Rev despite being less refined version of this style, so that is where my dislike stems from... Still I think had they addressed the community before hand, this business of art style change would not be eating up all of the threads about Civ 6.

 

[Battlehelm043]

Busatti was definitely on the Civ 5 art team, but Dorian Newcomb was our art director.

- Jon

Just saw this correction, thank you!