Civ 5 Art Direction.

[Junuxx]

Couldn't agree more with Lars Domus

Civ III's leaderheads often seem less realistic than Civ IV's to me. Besides, they all have really scary looking skins.

 

[Lars_Domus]

Hypernova: I think part of the problem here is that you use "cartoon" in a way that I don't understand. What do you mean to say is the difference between cartoons and caricatures?

You point to distorted body part ratios in the Civ IV leaders, and I agree - but they're simply "grotesquefied" in a different style than Civ III leaders. You obviously prefer the style in Civ III, and I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise, but they're still caricatures - or "cartoony", if you will, at least as far as I understand the word.

My honest opinion is that Civ IV heads look more like actual human beings than in Civ III, but it's obvious that the artists put a lot of work into both collections of leaders, even if they took some artistic license in both games.

Whatever route they take with Civ V is fine with me - photo realism, Civ III "claymation" or CivRev-ish, I think it's fun to see how they try to make historical persons come to life either way - I'm just tired of people matter-of-factly stating that the Civ III leaders were better than in IV. (Protip: It's a matter of taste.)

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 Khans ugliness, that detail about him would seem to be hard to discover, the portraits of him aren't that detailed.

Contemporary depictions, yes, but they could just as well have well taken inspiration from modern popular perceptions of him (as they did with, say, Cleopatra), such as he is depicted on Mongolian currency, for example.

I agree about the "caucasianification", though. That's an unfortunate trend with several Civ IV leaders that I hope to see reversed in V.

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.

A similar argument could be made against the Civ III depiction of Julius Caesar.

 

[Bowsling]

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.

Use logic. Do you think that a nomadic chief would win beauty show? Or that he would allow anyone to depict him as ugly?

 

[LordRahl]

I would be very happy if they used the same style for Wonder movies, as the ones in the Civ 5 Announcement Trailer. If you forward to 15 second mark, you'll see the Pyramids, and that clip is light years ahead of the Civ 4 depiction.

Of course, they can put in much more time into a single trailer than dozens of wonder movies, so I'll understand if they just don't have the resources to accomplish this.

And to the person asking how to depict Hanging Gardens, and other things that no longer exist. As the other poster pointed out, Civ 2 did it by simply panning over pictures (or paintings), and maybe adding some depth to them by layering. As long as you throw in some bombastic 'trailer' music in the background you're all set.

 

[SJSerio]

I agree about the "caucasianification", though. That's an unfortunate trend with several Civ IV leaders that I hope to see reversed in V.

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.

What I want to know is, what exactly is meant here by the word, "caucasianised"

 

[johnny139]

I dunno, personally, I like IV over most of the other games, stylistically. I wouldn't call it "cartoony" for the most part, but it IS exaggerated. Because... it's a video game. I don't want or expect photo-realism, and as long as the leaders are MOSTLY accurate -though for a commercial game that's secondary to the ability to look at them and say, hey, that's Caesar - I'm good with it. I'd rather have an inaccurate, badass-looking Genghis than an ugly realistic one, frankly.

As for the wonder videos, please, no live action. It was justifiable back in the mid-90s, but it just feels weird now that we have graphic engines that can make high-quality approximations of the actual buildings.

From what we've seen, I'm enjoying the new style. It seems like a natural step forward from IV, in that it's a nice balance of realism and caricature. I just hope my computer's good enough to handle it!

 

[Lars_Domus]

What I want to know is, what exactly is meant here by the word, "caucasianised"

What I want to know is, what exactly is meant here by the word, "caucasianised"

Well I can't speak for Hypernova, but I took it to mean he though Genghis Khan was made to look more Caucasian in Civ IV. It's an antiquated term for peoples from western Eurasia and northern Africa. In the United States it's even been used to mean "white people" exclusively.

Now "caucasianised" and "caucasianification" are not real words, obviously. Also "Caucasian" can carry racist undertones when used the way I described, so it's an unfortunate choice of words, and I would be wary of using it in causal conversation (unless referring to people from the actual Caucasus area, of course).

 

[SJSerio]

Thanks Lars! I just hate the use of the word for describing european, white people. Yet, nobody seems to know what it actually means. Just like I hate the use of the word Latino to describe people from Hispanic Nations.

Oh, and to me, the Genghis Kahn LHs look to be asian. I don't see where he appears to be "caucasionised".

 

[Souron]

Genghis should rightly look tatar. I can recognize this ethnic group as having any distinct features, but I'm sure that someone who knew a lot of tatars could.

I can recognize Slavs, and I'd say civ 3 Catherine looks marginally more Russian. Marginally.

 

[Dragonflow]

Genghis should rightly look tatar. I can recognize this ethnic group as having any distinct features, but I'm sure that someone who knew a lot of tatars could.

I can recognize Slavs, and I'd say civ 3 Catherine looks marginally more Russian. Marginally.

Well the thing is Catherine was a German and not Russian. She should look more western european and less Slavic, which she kind of did in Civ4.

 

[Thormodr]

As far as the Great Pyramid goes, I'd like to see it depicted as it was when it was new. It was apparently covered in white limestone which would have been absolutely awe inspiring when the sun shone on it. Some archeologists also believe that it had a cap stone at the top that was made out of gold. Current pictures of the great pyramid don't do it justice.

I suppose the same goes for the Hagia Sophia. It'd be nice to see it depicted without the minarets.

 

[Junuxx]

Use logic. Do you think that a nomadic chief would win beauty show? Or that he would allow anyone to depict him as ugly?

That's not logic, but rather a combination of common sense and wild speculation.

 

[Hypernova]

By cartoony I mean they intentionally didn't aim for perfect realism, such as the distorted proportions. I only called it "cartoony" because I remember that's what some preview websites called it as Civ IV was coming out, and because since then many have used that term.

A similar argument could be made against the Civ III depiction of Julius Caesar.

True, but Caesar is depicted as too perfect in both Civ III and IV (he has wrinkles in IV, but then an older version is depicted in IV).

Civ III's leaderheads often seem less realistic than Civ IV's to me. Besides, they all have really scary looking skins.

The scary looking skins is probably an uncanny valley effect.

Oh, and to me, the Genghis Kahn LHs look to be asian. I don't see where he appears to be "caucasionised".

Look again at the side by side comparison of the two Genghis Khans Lars Domus posted; can you seriously not see it? He looks way more caucasian in IV than in III. Incidently, I used the term "caucasionised" because it was the easiest way to get my basic point across.

I agree about the "caucasianification", though. That's an unfortunate trend with several Civ IV leaders that I hope to see reversed in V.

Indeed, it seems Gandhi was also affected and so where a number of other leaders, it was slightly unnerving.

I think uncanny valley is important here. When people say that they think Civ IV leaderheads look more realistic, I think what may really be going on is that they think that the Civ IV leaderheads look nicer, because the Civ III versions did fall into uncanny valley a bit - this was probably exacerbated by their lack of animation.

 

[Lars_Domus]

Thanks Lars! I just hate the use of the word for describing european, white people. Yet, nobody seems to know what it actually means. Just like I hate the use of the word Latino to describe people from Hispanic Nations.

Oh, and to me, the Genghis Kahn LHs look to be asian. I don't see where he appears to be "caucasionised".

We're getting far off topic here, but I'll indulge you.

Let's get a higher resolution picture of Civ IV Genghis, so we can get a closer look at him:

(The first thing I notice is that his skin isn't "silky smooth" at all! Take that, Hypernova! )

Next, let's look at how the Mongolians themselves perceive him. Here he is as depicted on a 500 tögrög bill:

Now, let's look at some actual photographs of Mongols. First a famous one, so you can all reference if you'd like. Former president Nambaryn Enkhbayar:

Spoiler :

... and some random Mongols I found in google image search:

Spoiler :

Now that guy in the leather hat kinda looks a little bit like Civ IV Genghis, actually, but you can plainly see that Civ Genghis doesn't look at all like he belongs to the same ethnic group as anyone in the pictures, or even himself on the bill. The most noticeable is probably that he lacks the epicanthic fold, and his eyes are noticeably larger than the others. His face is more angular, as where on the bill and the pictures the faces are more round. Also his cheekbones are both pointy and pronounced, where they should be broad but more rounded. Same thing with his nose - the other pictures have a broader nose bridge, and the general shape of the nose is rounder and softer. Actually, Civ IV Genghis could easily be South European or Middle Eastern.

Now, I'm not saying he doesn't look at all East Asian, but they sure could have made his facial traits a lot less ethnically ambiguous. It's like his face had a slider they put midways between East Asian and European. Compare him to Kublai Khan or Wang Kon, for example.

 

[Thormodr]

I am hoping that they use the more correct romanicized spelling of the Mongolian name for Ghengis Khan. Chinggis Khaan would be more appropriate in my opinion. Ghengis could be the Persian version (rolls of the tongue doesn't it?) of his name.

Name and title

There are many theories about the origins of Temüjin's title. Since people of the Mongol nation later associated the name with ching (Mongolian for strength), such confusion is obvious, though it does not follow etymology.

One theory suggests the name stems from a palatalised version of the Mongolian and Turkic word tenggis, meaning "ocean", "oceanic" or "wide-spreading". (Lake Baikal and ocean were called tenggis by the Mongols. However, it seems that if they had meant to call Genghis tenggis they could have said (and written) "Tenggis Khan", which they did not. Zhèng (Chinese: &#27491 meaning "right", "just", or "true", would have received the Mongolian adjectival modifier -s, creating "Jenggis", which in medieval romanization would be written "Genghis".[citation needed] It is likely that the 13th century Mongolian pronunciation would have closely matched "Chinggis". See Lister and Ratchnevsky, referenced below, for further reading.

The English spelling "Genghis" is of unclear origin. Weatherford claims it to derive from a spelling used in original Persian reports. However, review of historical Persian sources does not confirm this.[37]

According to the Secret History of the Mongols, Temüjin was named after a powerful warrior of the Tatar tribe that his father Yesügei had taken prisoner. The name "Temüjin" is believed to derive from the word temür, meaning iron (modern Mongolian: төмөр, tömör). The name would imply skill as a blacksmith.

More likely, as no evidence has survived to indicate that Genghis Khan had any exceptional training or reputation as a blacksmith, the name indicated an implied lineage in a family once known as blacksmiths. The latter interpretation is supported by the names of Genghis Khan's siblings, Temülin and Temüge, which are derived from the same root word.
Name and spelling variations

Genghis Khan's name is spelled in variety of ways in different languages such as Chinese: 成吉思汗; pinyin: Chéngjísī Hán, Turkic: Cengiz Han, Chengez Khan, Chinggis Khan, Chinggis Xaan, Chingis Khan, Jenghis Khan, Chinggis Qan, Djingis Kahn etc. Temüjin is written in Chinese as simplified Chinese: 铁木真; traditional Chinese: 鐵木眞; pinyin: Tiěmùzhēn.

When Kublai Khan established the Yuan Dynasty in 1271, he had his grandfather Genghis Khan placed on the official record as the founder of the dynasty or Taizu (Chinese: 太&#31062. Thus, Genghis Khan is also referred to as Yuan Taizu (Chinese: 元太&#31062 in Chinese historiography.

http://www.answers.com/topic/genghis-khan

Also, images from the thirteenth century of Mongol Khans may not be entirely accurate. Kublai Khan wanted to look more Chinese in order to appeal to the millions and millions of Chinese that he ruled over. So portraits of him and his ancestors would reflect that.

As the Great Khan Kublai renamed the Mongol regime in China Dai Yuan in 1271, he sought to sinicize his image as Emperor of China in order to win the control of millions Chinese people. When he moved his headquarters to Khanbalic or Dadu at modern Beijing, there was an uprising in the old capital Karakorum that he barely staunched. His actions were condemned by traditionalists and his critics still accused him of being too closely tied to Chinese culture. They sent a message to him: "The old customs of our Empire are not those of the Chinese laws… What will happen to the old customs?".[72][73] Even Kaidu attracted the other elites of Mongol Khanates, declaring himself to be a legitimate heir to the throne instead of Kublai who had turned away from the ways of Genghis Khan.[74][75] Defections from Kublai's Dynasty swelled the Ogedeids' forces. Because Khagan Kublai wanted to make sure that he laid claims to Mongolia and the sacred place Burkhan Khaldun where Genghis was buried, Mongolia was strongly protected by the Kublaids.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire

 

[Hypernova]

Totally agree with Lars Domus, Civ IV Genghis doesn't look Mongolian at all and I must add something, a major characteristic that Lars Domus left out, Civ IV Genghis skin shade is far too light for a Mongol. However...

(The first thing I notice is that his skin isn't "silky smooth" at all! Take that, Hypernova! )

OK, fair enough, the other image was too small to notice any imperfections, however in the case of Civ III Genghis I could see the imperfections in the small image, and I think Civ III Genghis has skin far more like what a nomadic warlord would have!

 

[NA00]

I almost forgot how creepy a lot of the CivIII leaders looked. Particularly Genghis Khan. Yikes!

 

[SJSerio]

We're getting far off topic here, but I'll indulge you.

Let's get a higher resolution picture of Civ IV Genghis, so we can get a closer look at him:

(The first thing I notice is that his skin isn't "silky smooth" at all! Take that, Hypernova! )

Next, let's look at how the Mongolians themselves perceive him. Here he is as depicted on a 500 tögrög bill:

Now, let's look at some actual photographs of Mongols. First a famous one, so you can all reference if you'd like. Former president Nambaryn Enkhbayar:

Spoiler :

... and some random Mongols I found in google image search:

Spoiler :

Now that guy in the leather hat kinda looks a little bit like Civ IV Genghis, actually, but you can plainly see that Civ Genghis doesn't look at all like he belongs to the same ethnic group as anyone in the pictures, or even himself on the bill. The most noticeable is probably that he lacks the epicanthic fold, and his eyes are noticeably larger than the others. His face is more angular, as where on the bill and the pictures the faces are more round. Also his cheekbones are both pointy and pronounced, where they should be broad but more rounded. Same thing with his nose - the other pictures have a broader nose bridge, and the general shape of the nose is rounder and softer. Actually, Civ IV Genghis could easily be South European or Middle Eastern.

Now, I'm not saying he doesn't look at all East Asian, but they sure could have made his facial traits a lot less ethnically ambiguous. It's like his face had a slider they put midways between East Asian and European. Compare him to Kublai Khan or Wang Kon, for example.

One thing, the pictures that you showed were modern pictures. While I am not an expert, I do love history and one thing that I can say is that Mongolians of today likely look quite different from Mongolians from Khan's era. From those pics, they look to have Chinese influence, afterall, after Ghengis Khan, I am sure that there was a lot of interbreeding between the cultures.

This is one of the things that has fascinated me about history (and I would like to see incorporated into Civ a little). It is the same thing in Europe. If the Romans did not move in to conquer the rest of Europe, people in Britain and France could look quite different then they do today. Throughout history, many cultures mixed together as they met, creating more varieties of people.

As far as Genghis Kahn goes, if you are saying that he looks more western, consider this: There has been mention that the Huns are said to come from Mongolia. That being the case, wouldn't you think that more European people would have asian characteristics if the pictures that you posted are true representations of what Mongolians looked like back then?

 

[Louis XXIV]

Like this and this, I suppose.

Honestly, the thing I like best about the Civ2 videos is the music. There was a good variety between them that Civ4's videos didn't seem to have. The Wonder videos were just so samey that I got bored with them.

 

[Hypernova]

Thorburne, this is going way OT, but "Mongol" is first and foremost an ethnic group, it is not just a nation. If Genghis Khan really didn't look like modern Mongolians, then by definition he would not be Mongolian. Anyway we know this not to be true. Huge movements would have had to happen to actually change the racial makeup of a whole nation in only 800 years, nothing of the sort happened. Mongols mixed with the Chinese of course, but be wary that "Chinese" is not an ethnic group, the majority of Chinese are Han and this is what some may associate with the "Chinese" race (though this is contrary the opinion of China itself, which claims to be a multiracial nation not representing one ethnicity). Many ethnic Mongols are also Chinese, they have their own autonomous region within China (Inner Mongolia). And all this is apart from the fact that contemporary portraits of Genghis Khan portray him as exactly like today's inhabitants of Mongolia.