Art style reminiscent of civ revolution 1 & 2

[Gorbles]

The only past iteration which diverges from this overall aesthetic is CiV. The previous games were much more in the same vein as what we've seen of CiVI so far.

So the kneejerk then seems less reasonable, especially given the Civ IV fanbase re-surfacing with all the posts we have criticising CiV and how they're happy CiVI seems to be taking aspects from IV.

That's the problem with generalisations. They don't work. Even demeaning all criticism of the new art direction as a "kneejerk" is problematic, I know. I'm trying to focus on those reactions themselves; the ones we can identify as somewhat reactionary (or definitely so).

You can blame the limited information (all game releases tend to be drip-fed in this way; Dawn of War III is currently suffering from similar reactions), but that doesn't excuse the way the commentary seems to have surfaced. I for one will never understand this seemingly "elitist" need to put down "cartoony" graphics as something only children will enjoy.

 

[Battlehelm043]

The only past iteration which diverges from this overall aesthetic is CiV. The previous games were much more in the same vein as what we've seen of CiVI so far.

So the kneejerk then seems less reasonable, especially given the Civ IV fanbase re-surfacing with all the posts we have criticising CiV and how they're happy CiVI seems to be taking aspects from IV.

That's the problem with generalisations. They don't work. Even demeaning all criticism of the new art direction as a "kneejerk" is problematic, I know. I'm trying to focus on those reactions themselves; the ones we can identify as somewhat reactionary (or definitely so).

You can blame the limited information (all game releases tend to be drip-fed in this way; Dawn of War III is currently suffering from similar reactions), but that doesn't excuse the way the commentary seems to have surfaced. I for one will never understand this seemingly "elitist" need to put down "cartoony" graphics as something only children will enjoy.

I usually, before becoming interested in Civilization, saw the art style choice as it was due to the limited graphical art at the time. It was the main reason I originally stayed away from it; eventually as graphics improved and I came around to trying it, and so did my friends. I can tell you that the new influx of fans was heavily linked by the visuals, and I think us seeing them as vocal as they are now stands to that. I agree there are going to be those elitists such as those who demand an immediate retooling of the art choice which let's face it, wont happen this close to launch. There are also the elitists who I remember very strongly pitching a fit over 4 and 5 and BE.

Now I'm not saying Civ 6 is gonna fall flat on its face I mean that is almost an impossibility. Heck look at the "elitists" who said CiV would, an look what actually happened; sold like crazy... All I'm saying is with how much people are complaining, the Devs may want to soothe the concerns a little or risk backlash if the negativity train gains speed.

I for one love what Shirk and Beach did for CiV and hope they are right about 6, but I think it would be appreciated by many if they would address this issue instead of blowing by it. Now as I have said before in regards to addressing these concerns, they should not be expected to about face and change the art choice, but who knows maybe the dialogue will bring people around to understanding the new look or even possibly inspire some slight tweaks between now and launch that can please both camps. I remember as CiV transitioned into G&K they did an art update. Although minor I found that it really put the polish of the CiV art. Who knows maybe that will happen here.

I for one though would like them to help me and I am sure many others adjust to this new style. Rather than just ignoring our concerns.. But heck we know they wont.

 

[Westwall]

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.

I think those are all perfectly valid reasons to feel frustrated. I know I was personally disappointed that the main complaints with Beyond Earth ultimately went unaddressed. It's possible there was no real way to fix the base problems plaguing that title but the overall lack of communication certainly didn't help.

Honestly, if Civ 6 is another disappointment, I'm probably done with Firaxis. I'm not going to bother following any of their future releases and I will actively denigrate and dehumanize anyone who does. I'm certainly not going to pre-order Civ 6 and if anything I'll be waiting at least a week to see what others say about it before I even consider making a purchase.

That said, I still hope it's good. If it delivers even half what it promises and manages to keep me invested through multiple playthroughs, I'll be a happy camper.

But it's all cautious optimism from now until October.

 

[blackcatatonic]

You know, the more I look at these screenshots, the more I think the art style isn't actually that bad.

I think I was stunned at first because I expected it to continue down the realistic path set out by CiV and this is really different. But actually there are lots of really lovely little details: the water of the coastline is gorgeous, and the units look well-made (the ships especially). I still think the colour palette is too bright, the forests could have more tree density and some of the buildings (especially the farms) look very cartoony, but I'm confident it will look better in motion, so to speak.

It probably helps that I didn't have a set mental image of what I wanted Civ VI to look like beforehand: just a sense that I wanted it to feel like an improvement on V. Visually, it doesn't seem to have achieved that. However, although I'm still worried about leader screens, as long as they (and the gameplay) meet my expectations I think I'll get over the art style pretty fast.

 

[Battlehelm043]

I think those are all perfectly valid reasons to feel frustrated. I know I was personally disappointed that the main complaints with Beyond Earth ultimately went unaddressed. It's possible there was no real way to fix the base problems plaguing that title but the overall lack of communication certainly didn't help.

Honestly, if Civ 6 is another disappointment, I'm probably done with Firaxis. I'm not going to bother following any of their future releases and I will actively denigrate and dehumanize anyone who does. I'm certainly not going to pre-order Civ 6 and if anything I'll be waiting at least a week to see what others say about it before I even consider making a purchase.

That said, I still hope it's good. If it delivers even half what it promises and manages to keep me invested through multiple playthroughs, I'll be a happy camper.

But it's all cautious optimism from now until October.

I completely agree with this although I haven't had more than 8 years following the Civ series as a whole but in that time I have played all the versions since getting hooked on Civ Rev. So if this one turns out to fall short I would just rely on the previous games till a new one rolled out or they fix it; but hey that is just me.

 

[Battlehelm043]

You know, the more I look at these screenshots, the more I think the art style isn't actually that bad.

I think I was stunned at first because I expected it to continue down the realistic path set out by CiV and this is really different. But actually there are lots of really lovely little details: the water of the coastline is gorgeous, and the units look well-made (the ships especially). I still think the colour palette is too bright, the forests could have more tree density and some of the buildings (especially the farms) look very cartoony, but I'm confident it will look better in motion, so to speak.

It probably helps that I didn't have a set mental image of what I wanted Civ VI to look like beforehand: just a sense that I wanted it to feel like an improvement on V. Visually, it doesn't seem to have achieved that. However, although I'm still worried about leader screens, as long as they (and the gameplay) meet my expectations I think I'll get over the art style pretty fast.

This is what I am trying to get across; I am not thrilled with the art choice but I have had to do all the convincing and selling consciously which to me shows a lack of care about the mood of the community on this issue. A simple article would suffice, or maybe if they came here and spoke directly to us then I am sure the issue could be smoothed out. But at present it seems only waiting until E3 will resolve it. An in the meantime people will continue to argue and sour over the issue... Plus I will rely on let's plays before I buy so I can see how it performs. Had they addressed the concerns right away or did some minor work in advance I may have pre-ordered but hey as I think we all are saying privately... I hope this turns out alright....

 

[Toulouse]

The only past iteration which diverges from this overall aesthetic is CiV. The previous games were much more in the same vein as what we've seen of CiVI so far.

So the kneejerk then seems less reasonable, especially given the Civ IV fanbase re-surfacing with all the posts we have criticising CiV and how they're happy CiVI seems to be taking aspects from IV. I for one will never understand this seemingly "elitist" need to put down "cartoony" graphics as something only children will enjoy.

I think you have this backwards. In Civ 3-5 the art direction is naturalistic while Civ 6 is running away from that to achieve a highly artificial ("cartoony," unnatural and bright) look. In Civ 4 the colors are earth like and the units and models are realistic looking. Only the animated leaders and foliage appear cartoony. Screen shots of Civ 3 reveal even more realism within the constraints of the computer tech of that era. Civ 6 is the clear departure.

Perhaps what your reaction really amounts to is a "kneejerk" defense of the cartoony style, which you happen to believe is an appropriate art direction for Civ. I happen to believe that a cartoony style is at odds with the subject matter and genre of the game, is inappropriate and was therefore probably done for commercial rather than artistic reasons.

 

[Gorbles]

I think you have this backwards. In Civ 3-5 the art direction is naturalistic while Civ 6 is running away from that to achieve a highly artificial ("cartoony," unnatural and bright) look. In Civ 4 the colors are earth like and the units and models are realistic looking. Only the animated leaders and foliage appear cartoony. Screen shots of Civ 3 reveal even more realism within the constraints of the computer tech of that era. Civ 6 is the clear departure.

Perhaps what your reaction really amounts to is a "kneejerk" defense of the cartoony style, which you happen to believe is an appropriate art direction for Civ. I happen to believe that a cartoony style is at odds with the subject matter and genre of the game, is inappropriate and was therefore probably done for commercial rather than artistic reasons.

Have you, um, seen the screenshots of Civ III or Civ IV? People have been posting them enough.

Civ VI from the screenshots has "realistic" colours. All manner of colours across the visible spectrum originate from nature. I have a range of trees outside my office that cross a whole load of different greens, from dull and yellowish to bright and grass-green (it helps that we're in spring, here).

But yes, please do dismiss my reasoning as "kneejerk" while attempting to hold up Civ III has a paragon of "natural" art direction. You stick to those guns

 

[Toulouse]

Have you, um, seen the screenshots of Civ III or Civ IV? People have been posting them enough.

Civ VI from the screenshots has "realistic" colours. All manner of colours across the visible spectrum originate from nature. I have a range of trees outside my office that cross a whole load of different greens, from dull and yellowish to bright and grass-green (it helps that we're in spring, here).

But yes, please do dismiss my reasoning as "kneejerk" while attempting to hold up Civ III has a paragon of "natural" art direction. You stick to those guns

Looks like pretty natural/naturalistic art direction to me. Also a serious map --one befitting the subject matter. No smurf huts or Christmas tree models stolen from Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer

 

[dexters]

Civ3 , unmodded looks like a tabletop game. The units look likes little plastic pieces you move around.

This may have been the result not of the graphical style, but the technology used to render the game. Which consisted mostly of pre-baked unit animations and pre-rendered terrain.
It had that plasticy CG look from the late 90s and early 2000s.

In isolation, Civ3 looks great, but when you have road spam/improvements, it looks like a bit of a mess. It looks particularly ugly with railroads.

Worth noting that with Civ3, people felt like it was technologically backwards, as Empire Earth came out the same year and had 3D polygonal unit models and 3D terrain. So Civ games courting controversy with choice of art style and technology isn't anything new.

 

[Haig]

Civ 4 has axemen in combat doing exaggerated swings and there's the Civ 4 lady spy with big rack running around in latex outfit.

Civ 4 definately has a light tone in the style yet is much more strategically deep than the so-called realistic looking Civ V. Both are great games.

If one doesn't have problems with Giant Death Robots, X-com units and archers shooting over cities, the Civ 6 style shouldn't matter.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Looks like pretty natural/naturalistic art direction to me. Also a serious map --one befitting the subject matter. No smurf huts or Christmas tree models stolen from Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer

There aren't enough cities in that Civ3 screenshot! [emoji16]

 

[Toulouse]

Yes it's reasonable to accuse Civ 3 and 4 of being technologically backwards in terms of computer graphics, even for their day, but the art design is naturalistic, not heavily stylized or cartoony. And that's what's being debated here.

Civ 6 isn't cartoony because Firaxis can't make maps and models that look more like nature. The trees and leader portrayals in Civ 4 are probably the only cartoon-like feature of prior Civs and it probably was the artist's prerogative to do them like that, perhaps to make the animations look decent. But that's not the overall aesthetic of 3 or 4.

 

[dexters]

There aren't enough cities in that Civ3 screenshot! [emoji16]

If only we could build cities on mountain ranges

 

[Mivo]

Art is always a matter of preference. Personally, I like the style shown in the few Civ 6 screenshots we have seen so far, and prefer it to the Civ 5 style. Then again, I also found Civ 4's visuals more pleasing than 5's.

 

[nokmirt]

Art is always a matter of preference. Personally, I like the style shown in the few Civ 6 screenshots we have seen so far, and prefer it to the Civ 5 style. Then again, I also found Civ 4's visuals more pleasing than 5's.

Here is Hitler's take on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rctc02KYjN0

 

[labellavienna]

The art scares me honestly, it looks pixar_ish with water colors. Definitely looks like a tablet game graphics

 

[Haig]

If by the release day we know that the features are rich and deep and gameplay fantastic, but someone decides not to buy the game because of these graphics... I don't know, I don't think he is even a fan.

'Grave of Fireflies' is a certified classic of animation, and a very bleak and depressing too, and it's characters looking like Dragon Ball Z don't make it any less good or "childish".

Total War is a good example of shallow strategy but with bombastic graphics.


I think this looks awesome. Saying it's Clash of Clans is simply <snip>.

(The swordmen are only ones with exaggerated proportions and weapons, but I'm used to it know. Maybe tune down the district color codes down a bit but not too much as not to lose the distinction)

Moderator Action: Inappropriate language removed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

If by the release day we know that the features are rich and deep and gameplay fantastic, but someone decides not to buy the game because of these graphics... I don't know, I don't think he is even a fan.

'Grave of Fireflies' is a certified classic of animation, and a very bleak and depressing too, and it's characters looking like Dragon Ball Z don't make it any less good or "childish".

Total War is a good example of shallow strategy but with bombastic graphics.


I think this looks awesome. Saying it's Clash of Clans is simply <snip>.

(The swordmen are only ones with exaggerated proportions and weapons, but I'm used to it know. Maybe tune down the district color codes down a bit but not too much as not to lose the distinction)

Moderator Action: Inappropriate language removed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

I think it might be the color palette of the land and map features that threw me off more than anything else. Sure the exaggerated features on the swordsmen were also a bit jarring...but that had much less of an impact. I,personally, hope they tone down the color palette for the map. Or maybe we can get another Blue Marble. Other than that, like you pointed out, the more I zoom in and the closer I look, the less disappointed I am... except for the map color scheme [emoji16]

 

[Toulouse]

I think it might be the color palette of the land and map features that threw me off more than anything else. Sure the exaggerated features on the swordsmen were also a bit jarring...but that had much less of an impact. I,personally, hope they tone down the color palette for the map. Or maybe we can get another Blue Marble. Other than that, like you pointed out, the more I zoom in and the closer I look, the less disappointed I am... except for the map color scheme [emoji16]

Right next to those horsemen is a tiny building, not sure what it is , maybe a well or outhouse or something...very stylized, elongated proportions and curved to look very cartoony -- that's what we're talking about...not just the obvious, garish colors.