Civ 6 on E3?

[KrikkitTwo]

It would be nice if they simplified the leader portraits (static 2d) to allow for Leaders (not their clothes but the actual leader, to change with Eras (some eras would be anachronistic washington would head america from Ancient to Renaissance, then quick succession of Lincoln, TR, FDR)

 

[stealth_nsk]

It would be nice if they simplified the leader portraits (static 2d) to allow for Leaders (not their clothes but the actual leader, to change with Eras (some eras would be anachronistic washington would head america from Ancient to Renaissance

They have really great animations. Of course, if you want to mod new leaders in, you could mod static 2d portraits in first. Other than this, I don't see any real reason to loose the animations.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

They have really great animations. Of course, if you want to mod new leaders in, you could mod static 2d portraits in first. Other than this, I don't see any real reason to loose the animations.

Well I'd rather have 4-6 leaders per civ in a game, (graphical effect only) than one 3d animated one. But 4-6 3d animated ones would be best.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Well I'd rather have 4-6 leaders per civ in a game, (graphical effect only) than one 3d animated one. But 4-6 3d animated ones would be best.

I'd rather have 4-6 civs than 4-6 leaders for a single civ. Leader is not only graphics, it's uniques with their own balance, etc. Almost the same work as new civ.

 

[Louis XXIV]

The painted leader backgrounds don't bother me at all. The player's focus is drawn to the character in the foreground, where it should be.

Yeah. I remember Civ2 where the leader was just a portrait in the background and you had a diplomat doing a lot of antics in the foreground. The background is just scenery, it's the leader that matters.

Did it look nice in Civ5? Absolutely. But I'm OK with a step back if they can get them done quicker and allow for more overall.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Yeah. I remember Civ2 where the leader was just a portrait in the background and you had a diplomat doing a lot of antics in the foreground. The background is just scenery, it's the leader that matters.

Did it look nice in Civ5? Absolutely. But I'm OK with a step back if they can get them done quicker and allow for more overall.

Plus if the simpler backgrounds makes it easier for Firaxis to add multiple leaders per civ at some point, I would say it would be well worth it. The new unique bonus system of civ6 where civs get 3 uniques + a leader bonus and leader agenda would make multiple leaders per civ very interesting I think.

 

[Mustakrakish]

What I mean is that there's value in abstraction. The Civ VI leaders are slightly caricatured, and the background are paintings... so you can suspend some disbelief. But the more you try to make things photo-real, the more the uncanny valley starts to come into play, and the mind asks things like, "Askia, why is your city still on fire?"

Well said. I said it before, there must be consistency in abstraction. Civilization games are all around very abstract... and then we have V screens with burning cities and whatnot.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

People also seem to forget that you will look at the Leader for no more than 10 seconds max.

Most people, after the novelty wears out, don't even listen/pay attention to the leader anymore, they just click on what they need and are on their merry way.

 

[King Jason]

People also seem to forget that you will look at the Leader for no more than 10 seconds max.

Most people, after the novelty wears out, don't even listen/pay attention to the leader anymore, they just click on what they need and are on their merry way.

This is why the investment in leader portraits always confused me. Even the animated leader graphics in civ2 seemed pointless and I just shut them off. The resources put in to give every leader in civ3 different outfits based on era seemed like a waste.

Really though, I never quite understood why the series even bothers with leaders and doesn't emphasis the civilization itself. Diplomacy could simply be the player interacting with the diplomatic envoys of each civilization, it's rulers merely being a distant abstraction that if they wanted to they could represent in game by mere mention.

I believe they did this with Galactic civilizations... That, or I just never remembered the names of any of the supposed leaders to any faction in that game. Assuming I'm correct I don't think interacting with nameless faces representative of the empires themselves took away from the experience of that game at all.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I'd rather have 4-6 civs than 4-6 leaders for a single civ. Leader is not only graphics, it's uniques with their own balance, etc. Almost the same work as new civ.

I'm saying 4-6 leaders that Are only graphics....
The civ you play always has the same bonuses/Agenda, but the picture + name of your leader changes.

That way you get more of a sense of playing/competing against civs than immortal rulers.
And that way you still portray those interesting personalities...they just aren't the totality of the civ for 6000 years. (Because they are just a picture/animation)

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Really though, I never quite understood why the series even bothers with leaders and doesn't emphasis the civilization itself. Diplomacy could simply be the player interacting with the diplomatic envoys of each civilization, it's rulers merely being a distant abstraction that if they wanted to they could represent in game by mere mention.

I think it is to give the game more personality. Players may not spend a lot of time looking at the leader animations but it still feels better to pretend you are meeting famous leaders than just seeing diplo messages or a portrait. Call to Power II did not bother with fancy leader screens. In fact, I think it just sent text messages to the player to communicate diplo agreements. And diplomacy felt really cold and distant.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I'm saying 4-6 leaders that Are only graphics....
The civ you play always has the same bonuses/Agenda, but the picture + name of your leader changes.

That way you get more of a sense of playing/competing against civs than immortal rulers.
And that way you still portray those interesting personalities...they just aren't the totality of the civ for 6000 years. (Because they are just a picture/animation)

You have problems with immortal leaders? I believe it's quite minor problem compared to:

1. These leaders will never be so impressive as fully detailed ones. Remember meeting Monty in Civ5? He's super cool.

2. There will be another side of immersion problem, much bigger for most players. It's ok for Quin Shi Huang to be wonder builder, but not Mao. Napoleon could be conqueror, but not Louis, etc.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

You have problems with immortal leaders? I believe it's quite minor problem compared to:

1. These leaders will never be so impressive as fully detailed ones. Remember meeting Monty in Civ5? He's super cool.

2. There will be another side of immersion problem, much bigger for most players. It's ok for Quin Shi Huang to be wonder builder, but not Mao. Napoleon could be conqueror, but not Louis, etc.

That doesn't seem any worse than The Mongols(or any of their leaders) as a major naval power, or Washington using Tengriist Inquisitors against the Protestant cities he took (after he became fascist).

The leaders in an era would primarily act based on their situation (including their uniques..and an agenda that supports those uniques)

Perhaps a new leader would swap or add a new secret/declared agenda. (or civs could hav an early and late agenda for the civ...both hard codded and known)

 

[stealth_nsk]

That doesn't seem any worse than The Mongols(or any of their leaders) as a major naval power, or Washington using Tengriist Inquisitors against the Protestant cities he took (after he became fascist).

The leaders in an era would primarily act based on their situation (including their uniques..and an agenda that supports those uniques)

Perhaps a new leader would swap or add a new secret/declared agenda. (or civs could hav an early and late agenda for the civ...both hard codded and known)

Since most players have no issues with immortal leaders, this could be a good idea for a mod, not the main game.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Since most players have no issues with immortal leaders, this could be a good idea for a mod, not the main game.

The issue isn't with immortal leaders, but with the leader>civ effect.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The issue isn't with immortal leaders, but with the leader>civ effect.

It's quite right effect. Personalized opponents are much more immersive.

 

[Louis XXIV]

You have problems with immortal leaders? I believe it's quite minor problem compared to:

1. These leaders will never be so impressive as fully detailed ones. Remember meeting Monty in Civ5? He's super cool.

I remember the horrible lag on my computer known as Montezuma, but I digress.

2. There will be another side of immersion problem, much bigger for most players. It's ok for Quin Shi Huang to be wonder builder, but not Mao. Napoleon could be conqueror, but not Louis, etc.

Well, no, not at all. The game's AI is still programmed to play the game and they have a hidden random agenda as well that could be exactly that.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

It's quite right effect. Personalized opponents are much more immersive.

Thats why there should Be leaders, not why they should overshadow the civ.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Thats why there should Be leaders, not why they should overshadow the civ.

You don't get it. Say you hate Shaka. You had bloody war with him in the past, nearly lost a city and so on. You're going to crush him despite your general goal of science victory. And then, boom, Shaka is replaced with some cute Zulu girl, with name unfamiliar even for historicians. And you're like "oops, where's my Shaka I wanted to kill?"

 

[Zaarin]

People also seem to forget that you will look at the Leader for no more than 10 seconds max.

Most people, after the novelty wears out, don't even listen/pay attention to the leader anymore, they just click on what they need and are on their merry way.

I must be weird, because to this day I still spend time admiring Civ5's leader screens. And Pacal can't possibly speak enough Yucatec Maya for my ears' content.