Civ 5 Art Direction.

[LordRahl]

I for one would like to see less of the goofy/cartoony Civ4 look, and return to the more serious/realistic art.

For example in Civ2, whenever you built a wonder, a video of actual wonder was shown, instead of animated representation.
Compare Civ2 Manhattan Project video with Civ 4 Manhattan Project video, and tell me which one has a more 'epic' feel to it.

When I play Civ, I want to feel like I'm playing a game that caters to adults, and not pre-schoolers...

 

[Grit]

They both seem epic in their own way but agreed most of Civ IV movies are pretty bad a return to Civ II movies would be a good turn.

 

[Thormodr]

I actually didn't mind the cartoony leaders but I do like the look of the Civ 5 leaders. Hopefully the advisors are the same. I loved the Civ 2 High council. ^^

 

[Bowsling]

Yes, the lack of advisers really doesn't feel right.
It feels much more lifelike when there's people, even if they're just a static picture. Just makes the game seem better, I don't know why.

 

[Beardy Dan]

How are you planning on videoing the Colossus or the Hanging Gardens of Babylon?

 

[Arakhor]

Don't you know that the Doctor is a keen Civ player? One of the TARDIS' many computers is permanently taken up by all twenty-six iterations of the Civilisation franchise!

 

[Lord Tirian]

How are you planning on videoing the Colossus or the Hanging Gardens of Babylon?

And that's the issue. A lot of wonders don't have real videos (much less of their construction), meaning if you want consistency, you need to do modern wonders in a similar style.

And consistency is one of the no. 1 things art direction aims for - and for good reason.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Rexflex]

As far as wonder movies go, no other Sid game did it as well as SMAC (only called secret project movies). CII was not a bad 2nd place, but the epic story-telling feel of the SMAC secret project movies extended from just showing the construction of something into the impact that the something has on the society that built it.

 

[Hypernova]

I don't know about wonders, but I love the fact Civ V seems to be returning to realism from toonland, the toon approach always looked wrong but it may have been a good way to transition from 2D to 3D. One of the first things I thought of when I saw screenshots of the Civ V landscape screenshots was the Civ III landscape. I like realistic leaderheads more too, but again I think the toony versions in Civ IV may have been a good way to transition to 3D. It is easier to do good looking toony 3D leaderheads than good looking realistic 3D leaderheads, this relates to uncanny valley.

 

[Quintillus]

I don't know about wonders, but I love the fact Civ V seems to be returning to realism from toonland, the toon approach always looked wrong but it may have been a good way to transition from 2D to 3D. One of the first things I thought of when I saw screenshots of the Civ V landscape screenshots was the Civ III landscape. I like realistic leaderheads more too, but again I think the toony versions in Civ IV may have been a good way to transition to 3D. It is easier to do good looking toony 3D leaderheads than good looking realistic 3D leaderheads, this relates to uncanny valley.

I don't actually find the Civ5 leaderheads thus far released to be very realistic at all. They hardly seem any better than the Civ4 ones to me, coming from the anti-cartoony position. Nowhere near as realistic as the Civ3 leaderheads. The terrain looks an awful lot like Civ4 to me, too, especially plains/mountains. The forest and jungle is certainly better, but I don't think a "return to realism" can be heralded at this point. Then again, the art may well change significantly by final release.

With wonder videos, there is of course the great problem of how do you take a video of the Great Library at Alexandria or the Oracle of Apollo Nike at Delphi? I actually liked the wonder graphics in both Civ3 and Civ4 in general. Sure, they werent' superrealistic in Civ4, but they werent' ridiculous like the leaderheads, either.

 

[Lars_Domus]

I don't understand why people hold up Civ III as the paragon of ralism. All the leaderheads there look like creepy-as-heck claymation puppets.

Sure, it was a delight to see their clothing change to suit different eras, but realistic? Perhaps you all need to load up Civ III and refresh your memory.

The fact of the matter is that apart for Civ II and Alpha Centauri, all the Sid Meier 4X's have gone for the caricature-look: Civ I, Colonization (and remake), Civ III, Civ Rev, just go back and look at them.

Seriously:


I can't really see a big difference in the level of realism. They both look like caricatures to me. If anything, Civ IV Lincoln looks less "plasticy".

 

[Willowmound]

How are you planning on videoing the Colossus or the Hanging Gardens of Babylon?

Like this and this, I suppose.

 

[Pink]

Yes it's pretty, but will it have hundreds of animations that slow down machines, and will an external .DLL be needed for 32 civs?

 

[Hypernova]

I don't actually find the Civ5 leaderheads thus far released to be very realistic at all. They hardly seem any better than the Civ4 ones to me, coming from the anti-cartoony position. Nowhere near as realistic as the Civ3 leaderheads. The terrain looks an awful lot like Civ4 to me, too, especially plains/mountains.

Well I don't know about their realism but I definitely think there less cartoony. And I really don't see how ciV mountains are similar to Civ IV, in Civ IV a mountain tile is a odd brown lump with only one peak and too much height for their diameter; in Civ V screens they actually reminded me of when I was skiing and actually look like mountains as viewed from a plane.

I can't really see a big difference in the level of realism. They both look like caricatures to me. If anything, Civ IV Lincoln looks less "plasticy".

Again, its not neccesarily about realism but cartoony look, and Civ III is definitely less cartoony than Civ IV, just off the top of my head, compare the Genghis Khans, compare the Gandhis, compare the Ceasars - and compare both the Civ III and Civ IV versions to photos/portraits/busts of what they looked like historically and in all cases I think the Civ III version is the better approximation.

 

[Lars_Domus]

Again, its not neccesarily about realism but cartoony look, and Civ III is definitely less cartoony than Civ IV, just off the top of my head, compare the Genghis Khans, compare the Gandhis, compare the Ceasars - and compare both the Civ III and Civ IV versions to photos/portraits/busts of what they looked like historically and in all cases I think the Civ III version is the better approximation.

For Gandhi you've got a point, in as much that the Civ IV one has always annoyed me - he and Hatshepsut seem to have been done in a style that differs from all the other leaders. Anyone would still easily identify him as Mohandas K. Gandhi, though.


As for Julius, the Civ III version looks nothing like the busts. Actually the Civ III version hardly has any defining facial features at all, it just looks like a generic template of a human face with roman props stuck on it (Really! Jus compare him to Civ III Licoln, or Gandhi above.) Civ IV has the better approximation. Better slightly exaggerated features, than no features at all.


As for Genghis Khan, none of the representations look right. A Mongol Khan should be good and chubby. Though, the Civ IV one at least looks like an actual human being. Also, none of the depictions I've seen of Genghis Khan present him as particularly ugly - like the Civ III version is.

 

[Shiggs713]

I for one would like to see less of the goofy/cartoony Civ4 look, and return to the more serious/realistic art.

For example in Civ2, whenever you built a wonder, a video of actual wonder was shown, instead of animated representation.
Compare Civ2 Manhattan Project video with Civ 4 Manhattan Project video, and tell me which one has a more 'epic' feel to it.

When I play Civ, I want to feel like I'm playing a game that caters to adults, and not pre-schoolers...

+infinity

regardless of how civ2 compares to civ4 or whatever other comparisons you want to make, just stop the cartoony BS graphics!!! Seriously Fireaxis, a couple high school drop outs with blender, PS and some free time can create better art than some of the crap you've released.

 

[Hypernova]

Again I must emphasize that I am referring to cartoony appearance not realism. Often neither the Civ IV nor the Civ III version look like what we think historical leaders looked like - and even that's uncertain in many cases. As for cartoony, Ceasar on Civ IV has a huge head for example, and I disagree that Civ IV Ceasar approximates the busts better than Civ III Ceasar, I'd say neither does:
.
And actually we don't really know what Genghis Khan looked like exactly, but again we see the enlarged head in his Civ IV rendition, and he seems to have been caucasianised between the series. As for our supposed knowledge of Genghis Khan's ugliness, that detail about him would seem to be hard to discover, the portraits of him aren't that detailed. However, the Civ IV version is definitely too perfect, he doesn't look like a hardened warrior and nomad, his skin looks silky smooth and his teeth are too perfect.

 

[Shiggs713]

well looking at all those ceasers head to head, I must say the civ4 one looks much closer to the correct facial features, but albeit still with a cartoony feel.

 

[Thorburne]

Hopefully the models for Catherine and Boudica are at least based of the ones for Civ IV

 

[Art Grin]

I guess that civ4 Catherine was based on what Catherine looked like when she was younger.



But she still looks much better in Civ4 then she did in Real-Life I guess.